Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Before Questions begin, may I remind the House of the statement that I made on Monday that where Questions are grouped together I intend to give priority to those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered before I call any other hon. Members.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Rhodesia (Geneva Conference)

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Rhodesian constitutional talks at Geneva.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the progress of the conference on the Rhodesian settlement.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I do not intend to make a statement at this particularly delicate stage of the negotiations in Geneva.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Secretary of State realise that while the talks in Geneva appear to be approaching a state of collapse the Soviet Union is apparently increasing its supply of arms to the guerrilla forces in Southern Africa? Will he therefore consider flying to Geneva, if that becomes necessary to save the talks, and make it clear to the nationalists that if the talks collapse at this stage many people in the world will see it as a result of their intransigence and their refusal to take "Yes" as an answer?

Mr. Crosland: I am prepared to go to Geneva if by going I can save the conference from collapse. There can be no doubt of that. We have made it clear that, whilst the talks are going on, both sides should do all that they can to de-escalate the guerrilla warfare that is going on. I do not think that the talks are now on the point of collapse. It is far too early, and it is too much of a hypothetical matter, to say upon whose shoulders such a collapse would lie.

Mr. Canavan: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that a major stumbling block to the continuation of the talks appears to be the understandable distrust that the African leaders have of Mr. Smith? Will he give an assurance that during the period of the transitional Government ministerial control of the police and security forces will not remain with Mr. Smith or any of his associates who participated in his illegal racialist régime?

Mr. Crosland: There are 101 stumbling blocks to an agreement at the conference. The one that my hon. Friend mentioned is a major one, but not the only one. Responsibility for the armed forces, security forces and law and order will constitute a central aspect when the conference gets round to discussing the question of interim government.

Mr. Maudling: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition fully share his desire to see a successful outcome of the conference but that we are deeply concerned about the lack of progress at the present stage? It is difficult to understand why it was considered wise to tackle the date for independence first. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it seems unwise to settle the date of arrival before knowing the route by which one gets there?

Mr. Crosland: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. Starting with the date and time required to reach independence was a tactical decision. I have no wish to criticise Mr. Ivor Richard on the tactics that he chose. It seemed to him that the date would be an easier matter to settle than, for instance, the question who should be responsible for law and order and the armed forces. The date for independence should have been easier to settle, and it is a disappointment that a difference of


three months is proving such an important obstacle.

Rhodesia (Sanctions)

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now arrange for a proposal to be made to the United Nations to lift economic sanctions on Rhodesia, in view of recent developments.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): No, Sir.

Mr. Farr: As it is nearly two months since the Kissinger agreement was reached, and now that the Rhodesian delegation is playing its part at Geneva, what is the point of maintaining sanctions if, in the meantime, we do not directly administer the territory?

Mr. Rowlands: We passed the sanctions order in the House only a few weeks ago and it was approved in another place only on Friday. I have made it clear that we shall move quickly to lift sanctions once an interim Government has been agreed.

Mr. Thorpe: Does the Minister not agree that it is dangerous to try to renegotiate the Kissinger package and to lift sanctions before there is an agreement? Are we not faced with two potentially fatal ambiguities? First, the 21st September telegram from Dr. Kissinger in Dar-es-Salaam could mean that agreement on defence and security questions had actually been secured, or, alternatively, that these matters should be placed on the agenda for discussion. Secondly, what does Mr. Smith mean by majority rule? Does he mean what the rest of us mean by majority rule, or does he mean a qualified majority rule? Does the Minister agree that until we get those ambiguities removed we shall not be able to negotiate on equal terms with both sides?

Mr. Rowlands: I agree that it is dangerous to lift sanctions before agreement is reached. The matter that the right hon. Gentleman has raised will be under discussion at the Geneva talks, and I do not wish to pre-empt those discussions.

Mr. Newens: Does my hon. Friend not find it astonishing that some of the most vociferous of the self-appointed guardians

of law and order are advocating that we should cease to sustain our action against the most outrageous act of illegality that has ever been perpetrated in a British territory? Would that not play into the hands of those who perpetrated that act? Should we not uphold law and order by continuing sanctions?

Mr. Rowlands: We must uphold law and order by maintaining sanctions. Some of the remarks made by those who want to lift sanctions before a settlement is reached and an interim Government has been arranged imply that they support the legalising of an illegal régime.

Helsinki Agreement (Belgrade Review Conference)

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest preparations he has made for the Belgrade Review Conference of the Helsinki Agreement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. John Tomlinson): I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 11th November. As the Belgrade Review Conference approaches, we shall of course intensify our consultations with our partners and allies. We are, moreover, maintaining a careful record of the degree of progress on implementation achieved by the participating States, with a view to making a full contribution to the Review Conference.

Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is it the Government's intention to press that the Belgrade Review Conference be held at a political level and not just at civil servants' level? In his preparations for the conference, what consideration is the hon. Gentleman giving to the arguments increasingly heard that the transfer of Western technology and expertise to the Soviet Union enables the Soviet Union to free other resources, which can then be used for purposes hostile to the West?

Mr. Tomlinson: The Government fully recognise the political importance of the Belgrade meetings. However, it is too early to think of formulating negotiating positions. We are in close touch with many other participating States in order to monitor progress and closely examine areas in which further


progress can be made. It is too early to be talking about the detail of the negotiating mandate.

Mr. Thorpe: As the Government are rightly monitoring progress, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Prime Minister received by hand a letter from Mr. Andrei Sakharov relating the conditions in which Mr. Vladimir Bukovsky is being kept in prison in Russia? What reply does he propose to give to that letter or, even better, what pressure does he propose to bring upon the Soviet Government to release Mr. Bukovsky?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am not in a position to confirm details about a particular letter, but I can make clear, as I have before, that over the past year we have on a number of occasions raised individual cases with the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries. Those concerned have been left in no doubt about the strength of feeling which rightly exists in the House and the country on all these matters, which will continue to be pressed on every possible opportune occasion with the utmost vigour.

Mr. James Lamond: Will my hon. Friend give one or two examples of the things that this country has done as a result of signing the Helsinki Agreement? For example, have we made it easier and quicker to obtain visas to visit this country?

Mr. Tomlinson: In addition to our frequent consultations with the other CSCE countries, to which I have referred, we have in particular recently notified a military manoeuvre—"Exercise Spear-point", in the Federal Republic of Germany—and we are taking action in a number of fields to develop contacts with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. We have made clear on a number of occasions exactly what needs to be done to facilitate freer movement of people between countries.

Mr. Maudling: In view of the hon. Gentleman's answer about individual cases will he confirm that the Government have received the same response as we on the Conservative Benches have had when we have put individual cases to the Soviet authorities—namely, complete silence?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am not in a position to confirm that. There have been a num-

ber of exchanges of view, some of which have been more successful than others. I do not consider it a laughing matter. Every opportunity has been taken to put individual cases as forcefully as possible, so that nobody can be left in any doubt about our feelings. Some approaches receive more response than others.

Nuclear Material Suppliers (London Meeting)

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the progress achieved in the London Club of nuclear suppliers.

Mr. Tomlinson: Officials from a number of countries who have decided to harmonise their nuclear export policies held another meeting in London on 11th and 12th November under United Kingdom chairmanship. The purpose of these meetings is to ensure that nuclear exports do not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear explosive devices. The Governments concerned will continue to keep in close touch.

Mr. Forman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that rather laconic answer. Does he agree that the issues involved are so grave that it is of the utmost importance to try to invoke the support of Parliament and public opinion by lifting the secrecy within which the discussions are conducted? Is the group now any nearer to publishing an up-to-date version of the so-called Zangger trigger list of proscribed nuclear exports, such as reprocessing and other sensitive technologies?

Mr. Tomlinson: At some stage it may be possible to say more on this subject. For the present, however, it has been agreed by all those participating that the discussion can best make progress if confidentiality is maintained. That applies to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question as well.

Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that secrecy in this matter will merely exacerbate public disquiet and uncertainty in these matters? Do our Government support the initiative taken by President Ford and by the American Administration on the idea of a three-year moratorium on the export of any reprocessing equipment for nuclear fuel?

Mr. Tomlinson: I can only re-emphasise that it has been agreed by all


those participating that the discussions can make real progress only if their confidentiality is maintained.

Transkei

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what tests Her Majesty's Government applied in considering whether or not the Transkei met the criteria for independence.

Mr. Rowlands: We tested the evidence available on the Transkei and the process by which it had achieved its purported independence against our legal criteria and in the light of all the relevant circumstances at the time.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: When the independence of, for example, the ex-High Commission territories and Malawi was recognised, were not those States at least as dependent as is the Transkei today on the former administering Power, so was not the Government's attitude decided not by objective criteria but by hypocrisy and double standards?

Mr. Rowlands: It was not decided by hypocrisy or double standards; it was based on an assessment of the case and the process by which the Transkei reached independence. if he compared that with the way in which we brought to independence the other States he mentioned, the hon. Gentleman would find a considerable difference.

Mr. Powell: Do not the Government find it bitterly ironical that, as part of the European Economic Community, the United Kingdom itself is not able to satisfy the legal criteria for recognition as an independent State?

Mr. Rowlands: I have not noticed any difference in our status in that respect.

Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that by the criterion of acceptability to the world community the Transkei has fallen flat on its face, in the light of the United Nations vote by 135 to nil not to accept it as an independent State?

Mr. Rowlands: It has been supported neither by any of our EEC partners nor by the United Nations.

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman talked about evidence. Will he make

available to the House the evidence on which he claims to have acted?

Mr. Rowlands: The evidence lies in the provisions of the Transkei Act. If the right hon. Gentleman studies them, he will realise that the Act is an extension of the Bantustan policy of South Africa and not the birth of a new nation.

Middle East

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives Her Majesty's Government intend to take regarding the situation in the Middle East; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Dr. David Owen): We hope that new negotiations for a Middle East peace will soon be launched, but it would be premature for us to consider an initiative before the new United States Administration has clarified its position.

Mr. Walters: Bearing in mind that Dr. Kissinger's step-by-step initiatives collapsed quite a long time ago, as he himself has now admitted, and that the transfer to a new Administration is continuing to paralyse American policy, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is time for a much more vigorous European involvement? Will the British Government, with France, try to take the lead in formulating a new policy in the Middle East?

Dr. Owen: The Middle East is discussed at regular intervals with the rest of the Nine, which constitute a useful forum for trying to co-ordinate policy. I think that the same objections apply to initiatives by the Nine as to an individual initiative from this country. Until there is a new Administration in office, although United States foreign policy is not paralysed it is not a good time for a new initiative.

Mr. Cronin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at present there is some evidence of an increasing and closer relationship between the United States Government and Egypt, which is considerably to the detriment of British economic interests?

Dr. Owen: There is undoubtedly a closer relationship than there has been in


the past between the United States and Egypt, but that goes for the United Kingdom and Egypt. One of the important and hopeful signs for the whole of the Middle East is that good contacts are being pursued by all the parties outside the region. That means that they will have more influence on the parties to the dispute when it comes to a discussion, but essentially the will for a settlement must come from the parties to the dispute.

Mr. Nelson: What is the latest news that the right hon. Gentleman has received from Amman on the armed attack that is reported to have taken place on the Intercontinental Hotel this morning? Will he take this opportunity of reaffirming Her Majesty's Government's support for King Hussein and, indeed, for the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom?

Dr. Owen: I take this opportunity of reaffirming our support for the King and for the Government of the Jordanians. My only information on this matter was obtained earlier this morning. At that time, I gather, there were no British casualties involved, although some British citizens are in the hotel. I shall let any Member know of any new events that may transpire. At the moment there is no apparent risk to British life.

Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend accept the warm welcome that we gave to the Foreign Secretary's recent statement on the rights of the Palestinians? Will he extend his views to an acceptance of the need to create and recognise Palestinian sovereignty in their own territory?

Dr. Owen: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on my right hon. Friend's speech. My right hon. Friend thought is was premature at this stage to lay down a constitutional blueprint. That was why he phrased his speech to the United Nations in the way that he did. I do not think it is right to go any further than the words he used at that time.

Namibia

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will now take a new initiative in the United Nations Security Council to end the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa.

Mr. Rowlands: We have just had a full debate in the Security Council which began on 31st August and continued intermittently until 19th October. We would expect the Security Council to discuss Namibia again next year unless a satisfactory solution has been found in the meantime. We shall of course continue to consult closely with others inside and outside the United Nations about the question of Namibian independence and freedom.

Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the unanimous vote supported by the United Kingdom for the Security Council resolution on 31st January was important and a step forward in relation to Namibia? Does he accept that it is no use voting for those excellent and impeccable principles unless we are prepared to follow up with positive pressure on South Africa? At the moment, we seem to be pursuing an ambivalent policy.

Mr. Rowlands: I think that we are following up with positive pressure. What I am not willing to do is to exercise or allow Chapter 7 determination provisions to be passed in this case. That is the difference between my hon. Friend and myself. There is not an absence of positive pressure, but we are trying to bring about co-operation with others.

Zambia (Foreign Minister)

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the Zambian Foreign Minister.

Mr. Rowlands: My right hon. Friend had a friendly discussion with Dr. Mwale in New York last month but there are no plans at present for another meeting.

Mr. Brotherton: When the Foreign Secretary next meets the Zambian Foreign Minister, will he tell him to tell his friends in Mozambique that not one more penny piece of British taxpayers' money will be payable to that Government as long as they support the murderous guerrillas who attack Rhodesians, both black and white?

Mr. Rowlands: If the hon. Gentleman wanted to ask about Mozambique and aid he should have tabled a Question on the subject.

Mr. Boris Ponomarev

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the meeting with Boris Ponomarev.

Mr. Tomlinson: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary had separate meetings with Mr. Ponomarev during the latter's visit, in the course of which there was a useful exchange of views on a wide range of issues.

Mr. Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that the open and clear statement of policy by all Ministers in connection with this visit is appreciated, as are their objections to the persecutions of minorities within the Soviet Union? Does he feel that the Russian guests at least understood that true detente will never come about while the persecutions continue?

Mr. Tomlinson: I think that my hon. and learned Friend will understand why I do not propose to go into the details of what was said in the discussions. Mr. Ponomarev and his delegation were left in no doubt about the strength of feeling that exists about divided families, the whole range of human rights questions, and the fact that if detente is to be meaningful it has to be meaningful for people as well as for States.

Mr. Blaker: Are not the activities of Mr. Ponomarev relevant to how the Soviet Union is performing its obligations under the Helsinki Agreement? In that context, will he reconsider the answer that he gave me last week, to which he referred in answer to an earlier Question today, in which he indicated that the Government do not propose to publish any review of the performance of the Helsinki Agreement before the Belgrade Conference? Is that not entirely unsatisfactory? Should the Government not consider publishing a White Paper before Belgrade assessing how the various parties—especially the main parties—have performed their obligations?

Mr. Tomlinson: That question does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper, and would have been more appropriately dealt with under Question No. 3.

Mr. Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend say whether, in the consultations with Mr. Ponomarev, the opportunity was taken to raise the question of prisoners such as Mr. Bukovsky, Mr. Moroz and Pastor Vins, who are kept in cruel and inhuman confinement in the Soviet Union? Was it put to him forcibly that they are conditions that no civilised State should allow?

Mr. Tomlinson: As I have said, Mr. Ponomarev was left in no doubt about the strength of feeling on these issues and on the issues that have been discussed involving the division of families and the denial of human rights. Every opportunity was taken to ensure that the strength of feeling which, as I have said repeatedly, rightly exists in the House and throughout the country was expressed to our visitors from the Soviet Union.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that what stick in people's throats are the double standards that are applied? How do the Government justify excluding a journalist from this country on the ground that his activities may be detrimental to State security—which they may well be—while at the same time welcoming with open arms a man whose avowed purpose is to bring down our system of government and whose agents are actively involved in seeking to achieve that?

Mr. Tomlinson: I can see no question of double standards. The only conclusion that the House can draw from the comments of Opposition Members is that the best way of pursuing detente, which I presume the hon. Gentleman as well as others in the House supports, is by totally isolating ourselves from any contact with those whose views we are seeking to influence and change.

Mr. Faulds: Will my hon. Friend accept that an increasing number of Members on the Government Benches are disturbed by what we see as too frequent invitations by the NEC to the anti-Socialist régimes of Eastern Europe and Russia?

Mr. Tomlinson: That is a question for which there is no ministerial responsibility. I hope that Conservative Members are not suggesting that when such


visitors are in this country we should not take the opportunity, as a Government, to seek to put to them in the clearest possible terms the concern that my hon. Friend and Conservative Members express in such strong language every time they have the opportunity.

Mr. Tugendhat: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the questions that are being asked in the House today, and the number of Members on both sides of the House who are asking them, are extremely helpful in the prosecution of the case in favour of individuals in the Soviet Union? There is all the difference in the world between Ministers telling their opposite numbers in the Soviet Union about their concern, on the one hand, and making it clear to the Soviets that this is something on which there is tremendous feeling, crossing all political barriers, not merely among minorities but among everyone in the country?

Mr. Tomlinson: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Pressure and, indeed, assistance is no use unless we have an opportunity to express our view to leading figures responsible for making decisions in the Soviet Union and other countries.

Namibia

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's approach to the current talks on the future of Namibia.

Mr. Rowlands: Her Majesty's Government take the view that political parties including the South-West African People's Organisation must be allowed to participate in negotiations and in a single electoral process. The Windhoek Conference, although a useful source of advice, does not yet constitute self-determination.

Mr. Townsend: In the light of Mr. Sam Nujoma's recent visit to Moscow to purchase arms, the obvious links between SWAPO and the Marxists in Angola, and the split between the internal and external wings of SWAPO, will the Government reconsider giving educational and financial aid to SWAPO?

Mr. Rowlands: We give aid to individuals in Namibia as a result of requests

from organisations, which include not only SWAPO but other organisations. I see no reason why we should deprive individuals of such aid.

Mr. Hooley: Will my hon. Friend accept that, if the Western Powers continue to fail to bring effective pressure on South Africa on this matter, SWAPO, Angola and other people directly concerned will seek alliances and arms elsewhere?

Mr. Rowlands: The best way of solving the problem is for South Africa to bring about an early and rapid movement towards a free and independent State of Namibia.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Have Her Majesty's Government changed the name of South West Africa to "Namibia", and, if so, with what authority? Has such a change the support of the indigenous peoples of South-West Africa?

Mr. Rowlands: Namibia is a reasonably known international name for what in other language is South-West Africa.

Rhodesia

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.

Mr. Crosland: I gave my views on this, as did many others, during the debate on the renewal of sanctions order on 20th October. I have not altered those views. Rhodesia's future depends totally on the negotiations now proceeding at Geneva.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Soviet policy envisages a Marxist revolutionary regime in Zimbabwe, with all the risks to life and property that are entailed? Will he now consider whether Her Majesty's Government will take full control throughout the period of transition before the democratic elections establish a popular Government of the Rhodesian people's choice?

Mr. Crosland: I do not doubt that that is the objective of Soviet policy, just as a quite different objective would be pursued by the United States Government or by the EEC. As for taking full responsibility, if the hon. Gentleman means that we should send troops and assume


military responsibility and that we should send British civil servants and assume administrative and executive responsibility, that would mean our resuming a full colonial role in Rhodesia—a role which we have never exercised as a Government. That would not be accepted by a Government of any party in this country.

Mr. James Lamond: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any settlement arrived at on Rhodesia does not involve the British Government in paying substantial sums of compensation to white people who may at that point wish to leave Rhodesia because they have never at any time acceded to the legitimate desires of the Rhodesian people?

Mr. Crosland: I have made clear on other occasions, and I wish to repeat today, that the main objective of the aid proposed for Rhodesia is to assist the development and growth of an independent Rhodesian Government. As for the white population, so far from its being our desire that its members should leave, we want all those who wish to stay, and who have the will to stay, to do so and thus help the development of the economy of an independent Rhodesia.

Sir John Hall: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the present Geneva Conference breaks down, through no fault of the Smith regime, it would be quite wrong to continue to impose sanctions on Rhodesia?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I have no doubt that when the conference breaks down—if it breaks down, and I hope and believe that it will not—it will break down in a situation in which no simple attribution of blame is possible. It will break down, if it does, fundamentally because of mistrust, scepticism and hostility born of 11 years of illegal independence.

India

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present state of relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of India.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): We maintain normal and good relations with the Government of

India and are in close contact with them over a wide range of issues.

Mr. Adley: In view of the enthusiasm with which the Lord President of the Council and the Archbishop of Canterbury have recently returned from India, will the Minister say whether it is true that elections there have again been postponed, that Opposition Members of Parliament have been imprisoned and that The Times correspondent was recently expelled? If those events are correctly described, is the Minister saying that they have no relevance to the subject of relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Indian Government?

Mr. Luard: We deplore any departure from democratic principles and any violation of human rights in any part of the world, wherever they may occur. I cannot comment officially on any individual cases or policies which are wholly within the domestic jurisdiction of a particular country. The Government of India are in no doubt as to the feelings of Members of this House on the state of emergency in India.

Rhodesia (Geneva Conference)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Geneva Conference on Rhodesia.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Geneva Conference on Rhodesia.

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the constitutional talks at Geneva on the future of Zimbabwe.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the progress of the Geneva talks on Rhodesia.

Mr. Crosland: I would refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) earlier today.

Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in spite of the pressure to


advance the independence date, it is still his policy that in no circumstances will independence be granted other than to a Government constitutionally elected, with a proper mandate?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir; I confirm that that is our intention. Indeed, the fact that we have stuck to that intention has been one of the complications in the disagreements of the last few days. Nevertheless, we cannot allow ourselves in Parliament to be put into a position where we are legalising what is still an illegal regime.

Mr. Whitehead: Returning to the answer given to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) on Question No. 13, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say whether, if the impasse at Geneva continues—and we hope that it will not—he will close his mind and that of the Government to the resumption of any responsibility for security within Rhodesia or Zimbabwe?

Mr. Crosland: It depends what is meant by "any responsibility". What I said in answer to that earlier Question was simply that, if that responsibility involved British armed forces being sent to Rhodesia, Her Majesty's Government would not accept that situation—nor, I believe, would any Conservative Government dream of accepting it.

Mr. Hastings: The Foreign Secretary may have seen a report by a responsible commentator at the beginning of the negotiations suggesting that the British delegation appeared to have gone out of its way to insult Mr. Smith and his delegation. Will he reassure the House on this point and make certain that there is no question of any bias of that kind in future?

Mr. Crosland: I try to read as many responsible commentators as I can, but there are quite a few of them to read every day. I do not recall such a suggestion, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the British Government's negotiators in Geneva do not—I repeat "not"—believe in exchanging insults. In the last few days the main insults have come from Mr. Smith.

Mr. Faulds: If the talks are to be successful, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the urgent necessity of accepting Britain's responsibility in a colonial ter-

ritory and in the interim period providing a governor-general backed, once the white officers of the Smith regime have been dismissed, by Commonwealth troops from various countries?

Mr. Crosland: I repeat that Britain has never exercised full colonial responsibility for Rhodesia since 1923—nor indeed before, for quite different reasons. As for the institution of a governor-general, the extent of British involvement will have to be decided in the light of whatever agreement is reached. But I wish to make it clear that the Government rule out in all circumstances any dispatch of British armed forces. As for an international peacekeeping force under the United Nations, the Commonwealth or the OAU, I shall bear that suggestion in mind, but the great objection to such an international force is that it would take an immense amount of time to organise and to get to Rhodesia. It would take a very long time and a great deal of negotiation and bargaining to get this force there. Whatever presence we have must be there from the beginning, which I hope will not be a very long time away.

Mr. Marten: Is not one of the great dangers that the longer the Smith Government stay in power the greater is the threat of the spread of Communism in Africa?

Mr. Crosland: That is a very acute danger indeed. In my view, there would be no threat of Communism now in that part of Southern Africa—incidentally, one should not exaggerate the threat—and there would be no such threat of any kind at all had Mr. Smith and his illegal regime not refused to budge one inch for 11 long years.

Mr. Maudling: Would I be correct in understanding that the Foreign Secretary no longer entirely rules out the suggestion of myself and of some of my hon. Friends that the presence of a British governor-general, by mutual agreement with the African countries surrounding Rhodesia, might serve as a good guarantor of an independence constitution guaranteeing individual rights, the independence of the courts, and law and order?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir, I have nothing more to add to what I have already said


in answer to questions on this extremely difficult and complex subject.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

European Parliament (Direct Elections)

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the first direct elections to the European Parliament to be held in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Owen: The Act signed on 20th September provides that the period for the first elections shall be determined by the Council of Ministers after consulting the Assembly. The Governments of the member States are committed to making their best endeavours to hold elections in May or June 1978.

Mr. Gow: Is the Minister aware that even those of us who voted "Yes" in last year's referendum—

Ms. Colquhoun: Traitor.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid I did not hear the remark. [Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms. Colquhoun) say "Traitor"?

Ms. Colquhoun: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Lady to withdraw that expression.

Ms. Colquhoun: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gow: Is the Minister aware that even those of us who voted "Yes" at last year's referendum are increasingly concerned that the consequence of direct elections will be additional powers given to the European Parliament and the derogration of powers of this House? Will the Minister make a statement to the House about that aspect of the matter?

Dr. Owen: I do not think that the issues are related, although it is known that the European Parliament wishes to have more powers, and that over some aspects, such as the control of the Commission, there is a widespread feeling that it is a good idea that the European Parliament should have those powers. But the mere fact of having direct elections does not of itself carry any explicit pledge of greater powers.

Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend say whether any date for the start of direct elections is laid down in Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome?

Dr. Owen: To the best of my knowledge, no, Sir.

Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman has no doubt seen the article in the Economist of last week stating that, if the elections were held under our present corrupt system, the Labour Party would get about five Members if it was lucky, according to present trends. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who were pro-European long before most of those on the two Front Benches would prefer, in 1978, to have continued nomination rather than a rigged election under our corrupt electoral system, which would produce a totally distorted result?

Dr. Owen: The right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to argue his case. He knows better than anyone that the Select Committee has recommended the use of the system employed at parliamentary elections—that is, the first-past-the-post system—for the first direct election to the European Parliament. The Committee discussed the question of having some unified system throughout the Community which could be applied at a later date, but these are issues that would have to be discussed in relation to any such legislation coming to this House, and no doubt they would be.

Mrs. Bain: Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will be bringing forward appropriate legislation in the next Session, and whether he can indicate at this stage how many seats Scotland is likely to have in a direct elections situation, since we seek parity with other small nations within the European Community?

Dr. Owen: I cannot and do not intend to prejudge the Queen's Speech, but we have already made it clear that the Government will introduce the legislation at the earliest practical moment.
As to the allocation of seats, the hon. Lady will no doubt have read the recommendation of the Select Committee. This is something that will be discussed in relation to the legislation, and the Government have yet to take a view on this issue.

Mr. Heffer: Is the country not getting into a ridiculous position, in the sense that we shall have elections for this House, elections for Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, votes for county councils, votes for district councils, and then votes in the direct elections to the European Parliament? We shall have more continuous elections than there are in the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers.

Dr. Owen: I note my hon. Friend's support for elections in all forms, even in the trade union movement, which I, too, strongly support. But I do not deny that, as part of the constitutional changes which are likely to come before the House in the next few years, we shall have to review the whole question of how many elections are held and at what point decisions are made. I am a strong believer in some decentralisation of authority, but clearly this raises serious issues that need to be looked at as a whole and not bit by bit.

Mr. Hurd: The Minister has already referred to the Second Report of the Select Committee. Does he accept the analysis that the Select Committee made after listening to a lot of evidence from the Boundary Commission, namely, that if the Commission was to do its essential work properly Parliament would need to be able to discuss and decide the main issues by the end of February. Does he accept that analysis?

Dr. Owen: This is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. This is one of the aspects of the Select Committee Report that we are looking at most seriously—how to achieve both early legislation and also carry out the full Boundary Commission procedure. This is a real problem for the House at the moment.

Foreign Ministers

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his last meeting with his EEC colleagues.

Mr. Crosland: I attended the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 15th and 16th November. On the external relations side, the main items were the reply which the Community should return to the

Council for Mutual Economic Assistance proposals received earlier this year, which is the subject of the next Question on the Order Paper, and agreement on the Community's Generalised Scheme of Preferences for 1977. The Council also considered a wide range of other external relations questions, on which I shall circulate a statement in the Official Report.
Commissioner Gundelach reported to the Council on his talks in Iceland on 12th November. We emphasised once again the great importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to arrangements that will allow us to continue fishing in Icelandic waters after the expiry of the provisional agreement. We also urged on the Council the need for a cutback in third country fishing in Community waters from the beginning of 1977.

Mr. Marten: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that short statement. Does he net believe that it should have been a statement at the end of Questions, as has been the custom, or are we to conclude, from the fact that it was only an answer to a Question that I happened to have on the Order Paper, that nothing very important was achieved at the conference?
Among the subjects thought likely to be discussed at the meeting held earlier was that of EEC passports. May we have an assurance that, if we are to have them, they will be additional only for people who want them—I cannot imagine why—and that they will not be compulsory for people who do not want them?

Mr. Crosland: With regard to the first part of the question, I have looked into this, and I find that there is no rule of procedure that makes it mandatory or even a matter of courtesy that an oral statement should be made each time a decision is taken. I hope it is accepted that good will and fair judgment are exercised each time on the question whether the business of the Council justifies a statement, bearing in mind the crowded nature of our business.
As for the question of the common passport, I have a great deal of personal sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, being on this kind of subject, like him, an old-fashioned patriot. Nevertheless, the view has been taken that in the interests of


Community unity there would be advantage in having at any rate a greater degree of uniformity in the passport. This will be compulsory rather than voluntary, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman, having examined possible samples, that at the end of the day the British passport will remain highly recognisable.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Secretary of State say a little more about his discussions with Commissioner Gundelach? Is he aware of the grave concern that exists among fishermen on Humberside about the failure to reach an agreement with Iceland? What additional plans are there in hand for the end of this month?

Mr. Crosland: There is a Question about this matter later on the Order Paper, but as my hon. Friend mentioned Humberside I shall answer it now. I am aware of the deep anxieties felt on Humberside and I am in continuous touch with fishing interests. However, some recent statements have been very unfair to the Community and the Commission in suggesting that no action has occurred on the subject of Icelandic fishing. I have no intention of making a statement today about what might happen after 1st December.

Mr. John Davies: Will the Foreign Secretary say whether the Council of Foreign Ministers arrived at any conclusion about the advice that they might give to OPEC countries on the question of oil price increases in future?

Mr. Crosland: No. This was discussed, but no firm agreement was reached on Community action, as opposed to any action which individual Governments might take bilaterally with the various OPEC countries.

Mr. Mikardo: On the subject of passports, is the Foreign Secretary aware that immigration officers at Heathrow will refuse to look at British passports if they are handed in at the desk marked "EEC Passports"? This indicates that these officers have more good sense than some hon. Members in this House.

Mr. Crosland: I am not absolutely certain what reply to give to that question. Fortunately, the situation that my hon. Friend has described is a matter for the Home Office and not the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must be fair to other hon. Members who have Questions on the Order Paper.

Following is the Secretary of State's statement about the meeting of the Council of Ministers:
The Council meeting spread over two full days. I attended the first day, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who both represented the United Kingdom on 16th November. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was present for discussion on fisheries matters.
On the external relations side the Council made good progress on the Community's 1977 Generalised Scheme of Preferences, which will continue the process of improving the preferences offered by the Community to developing countries on a wide range of industrial and agricultural products. Emphasis was put on the need to improve the scheme in the interests of all the poorest countries. After the President of the Council had reported on his meeting with the President of the ACP countries, Ministers discussed briefly new accessions to the Lomé Convention. The Council defined the Community position in preparation for the November session of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation and it was agreed that this issue would be further discussed at the European Council on 29th and 30th November.
The Council agreed the Community's offer for the second EEC/Greece Financial Protocol and that formal negotiations should be opened with Iran for the conclusion of a commercial and economic co-operation agreement. The Council approved in principle the results of the negotiations with the Mashraq countries and Israel. The agreements with these countries are expected to be signed early next month. The Council also had a further useful discussion on ways in which the Community's links with Yugoslavia could be strengthened.
There was no discussion of the uniform passport but I expect that Foreign Ministers will consider it at the December meeting. The Council approved the text of a draft declaration which is proposed for issue jointly by the Council, the European Assembly and the Commission affirming their respect for fundamental rights in the Community.

COMECON Countries (Commercial Agreement)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position relating to the negotiations regarding a proposed commercial agreement between the EEC and the COMECON countries.

Dr. Owen: The Community's reply to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance's proposals which were received earlier this year is being handed over today to the President of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance Executive Committee in Warsaw. The Community's reply takes the form of a draft agreement. A letter from the Presidency will be handed over at the same time expressing readiness to open negotiations straight away on this basis.

Mr. Blaker: Will the Minister of State assure the House that there is no proposal for the Community to extend to the Soviet bloc even easier credit terms than those which exist at present? Should not the Community consider whether the existing arrangements, in which Community countries extend to the Soviet bloc very long credits on easy terms, should be re-examined, as they may be contrary to our interests?

Dr. Owen: I am in some difficulty, because it is impossible, while negotiations are still taking place, to answer detailed questions on the position of the Community in these negotiations. I prefer to await a successful conclusion to the negotiations. It is far better that I should resist being drawn on any aspect of the negotiations.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend refrain from taking notice of such questions? Millions of constituents of Hon. Members on both sides are very dependent on engineering and other orders, which can be obtained on a huge scale from the Soviet Union at present.

Dr. Owen: I certainly agree to the extent that I hope it will not become a subject of dispute between the two sides of the House that we should trade with COMECON countries. This would be a totally new attitude for the Opposition

and I am sure that they do not contemplate it. All hon. Members want a fair and detailed agreement between the Community and the COMECON countries, and this is what we are attempting to negotiate.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) mentioned engineering, but will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the British wool textile industry is substantially at risk from quotas previously negotiated with COMECON countries? Will he ensure that British interests are well protected?

Dr. Owen: I assure all hon. Members that in these negotiations we are protecting both British and Community interests, as well as taking a wide look at the whole question of international trade.

Mr. John Davies: Will the Minister of State say whether the missive to the CMEA countries includes a strong recommendation that the negotiations would proceed more favourably and satisfactorily if there were recognition of the Community by CMEA and the COMECON countries?

Dr. Owen: This is implicit in the negotiations. Once one has made a reply to the COMECON countries and one enters into negotiations, one is much closer to a situation, and, in fact, de facto in a situation of recognition, which has not occurred before.

Common Fisheries Policy

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in renegotiating the EEC common fisheries policy.

Mr. Crosland: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).

Mr. Henderson: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is concern in the inshore fishing industry because too much attention is being paid to the Icelandic situation and the position of third countries? We are equally concerned with the piratical practices of some EEC countries in fishing, and this


emphasises the need for exclusive limits for our own fishermen. Is the EEC taking a more sympathetic view in terms of the negotiations for an exclusive limit of at least 50 miles for our fishermen?

Mr. Crosland: I am aware of the anxiety felt among coastal fishermen. The reason why more attention has been paid to Iceland and third countries is that these agreements had to be negotiated by 1st December and the end of the year, respectively. There is no doubt about the critical importance to our country of coastal fishing belts. On the question whether an agreement is likely, some work has been done in the Commission. It has not proceeded very far, because of acute differences of opinion among Community nations about the size of coastal belts. However, we have not changed our negotiating position in the slightest degree since my statement of our definitive position on 4th May.

Mr. Grimond: The fishing community will be grateful for those assurances that safeguarding the position of our inshore fishermen is "critically important". Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is mounting anxiety about both timing and enforcement? Can he give any date for the end of the negotiations for 50-mile limits, and can he say what preparations have been made to police these limits'?

Mr. Crosland: I cannot give a definite date. On the question of enforcement, I can confirm that an enormous amount of work has been done on the question how to police and enforce whatever quota arrangements exist in coastal belts. No set of arrangements that exist on paper are worth the paper they are written on unless there is some policing.

Mr. James Johnson: I accept that the issue of limits—whether they be 12, 50 or 200 miles—is a most complex matter, but does the Foreign Secretary agree about the despondency felt in the fishing industry, particularly on Humberside') If the EEC negotiations with Iceland break down will we, as a nation, be able to conduct bilateral talks with Iceland?

Mr. Crosland: Every time we have a question on fisheries we go through this farcical process, in which I am asked whether I am aware of the feelings on

Humberside. I am as familiar as anyone else with those feelings. As for what will happen if the negotiations with Iceland fall down, I shall not answer hypothetical questions. I have good hopes that an agreement will be reached, although I have no intention of speculating about its content.

Mr. Hicks: What assurances has the Secretary of State received to ensure the continued economic livelihood of the inshore fishermen of Devon and Cornwall, in particular, in terms of the conservation of mackerel stocks?

Mr. Crosland: The immediate problem facing the Devon and Cornwall fishermen over mackerel concerns the Soviet trawlers. That is why we have pressed very hard the urgency of an agreement between the EEC and the Soviet Union that will have the effect of drastically reducing Soviet and other third country catches in the waters off Devon and Cornwall.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not a mistake to suggest that there is a conflict of interest between deep-sea fishermen and inshore fishermen? Are they not all facing the same problems, which revolve around ensuring that the fishing industry is sustained in as healthy and viable a state as possible'? Are the Government working towards that end?

Mr. Crosland: I hope that I did not give the impression—I had no intention of giving it—that there is a conflict of interest between the two sections of the industry. They are two separate interests, but they are not in conflict. I endorse my hon. Friend's final statement that we need an arrangement that will bring prosperity to the entire British fishing industry, whether inshore or distant water.

Mr. Brotherton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the position of the middle-water and seine vessels, and agree that the threat comes from the Russian and Bulgarian fishermen, who pose a great threat not only to us but to the other members of the EEC? Will he bring this matter to the attention of our EEC partners, so that when we have our own 200-mile limit within the Community it is reserved for Community fishermen and is not available to those behind the Iron Curtain?

Mr. Crosland: I am relieved that the hon. Member did not ask me whether I was aware of the strong feelings held in Grimsby and Cleethorpes. In so far as I could hear the later part of his question, I think that I agree with it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL (DIVISIONS)

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we enter upon matters of privilege I have an important statement to make to the House.
Later on today we shall be considering the Lords amendments to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. If previous experience is any guide there will be some close votes. At the same time, as the Leader of the House explained yesterday, there will be a mass lobby in progress.
I must make it clear to the House that the responsibility lies on Members themselves, if they are not actually in the Chamber, to make themselves available in the Division Lobbies if and when a Division takes place. That is their responsibility and not mine or anyone else's. I am sure that all concerned will do all they can to provide easy access to the Chamber, but in the last resort it is a Member's duty to be here.
I do not in any way discount the vital importance of a Member's duty to his constituents, but in my view his duty to this House comes first. That is why his constituents sent him here.
I wish to inform the House, therefore, that in no circumstances whatsover will I entertain a request today that a Division be held again on the grounds that a Member or Members could not reach the Chamber in time. If Members cannot be here within the allotted time—and I intend to allow the full time, as extended by my predecessor, before I order the doors to be locked—their votes will not be counted.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

3.33 p.m.

Sir Paul Bryan: The question of privilege which I wish to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, has much in common with that raised by the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) yesterday. You may therefore find it convenient to consider the two cases together.
I refer to a Press handout widely reported in today's newspapers and released yesterday by the Socialist Democratic Alliance which describes itself as
Labour's moderate grass-roots organisation".
In Chapter 10 of "Erskine May" there is included among the breaches of privilege and contempts listed on page 153:
Reflections on the motives of a Member or a group of Members".
The document issued yesterday must qualify time and again under that description. The handout is entitled "Labour's Fifth Column". It describes itself as "A documented study". Its first three pages are not strictly relevant to my case in that they deal with such extra-parliamentary bodies as the National Executive Committee and the trade union leadership.
I turn straight to page 4 where under the heading "Parliamentary Labour Party" one reads—and I shall quote in full since I am advised that you can take account only of what is actually read out in the House, Mr. Speaker—as follows:
It is sad for democrats in the Labour Party to have to face the fact that many of the political sympathies displayed by members of the NEC and top trade union leaders are also reflected amongst Labour Members of Parliament.
We do not argue, as did George Orwell over 30 years ago, that there are 'underground Communists' in Parliament. We do however argue that there are Labour Members of Parliament whose views and actions would lead a reasonable man to believe that they have sympathies with the varying shades of totalitarian communism.
Indeed, Sir Harold Wilson was more specific. He argued, in an interview in The Times (2 Aug., 1976) that the Tribune Group of Labour M.Ps was very different today than it was in Nye Bevan's time. Incredibly and significantly he went on to allege that 'different forms of what are called Neo-Trotskyites, and Marcusism, and Maoism, IS (International Socialists) and all the rest.. some of those are represented in the House'.


This is a very serious allegation by a former Leader of our Party. We in the SDA do not know who the Maoist, IS, or Neo-Trotskyite MPs may be. Nevertheless, we feel that Sir Harold should tell us.
For our part the SDA intends to be more judicious and precise. We believe that Labour MPs should draw a clear distinction between democratic socialism, as we have known it in Britain, and ideas and organisations of the marxist totalitarian left.
THEY SHOULD, IN OUR VIEW, NOT WRITE FOR, NOR CALL FOR FINANCIAL. ASSISTANCE FOR, NOR SPEAK AT THE RALLIES OF, THE COMMUNIST MORNING STAR; NOR SHOULD THEY WRITE FOR OR SUPPORT THE COMMUNIST PUBLICATION LABOUR MONTHLY; NOR SHOULD THEY ASSOCIATE THEMSELVES WITH COMMUNIST FRONT ORGANISATIONS LIKE THE WORLD PEACE CONGRESS; NOR SHOULD THEY ASSOCIATE THEMSELVES WITH TROTSKYITE AND NEO-TROTSKYITE ORGANISATIONS SUCH AS THE INSTITUTE FOR WORKERS' CONTROL.
The following Labour M.Ps, all of them intelligent enough to understand how their actions may be interpreted, have nevertheless chosen"—

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. English: Mr. English rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have two Members on their feet at the same time, and I count as one. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) is speaking on a point of order. It is a point of privilege.

Sir P. Bryan: The document continues:
The following Labour M.P.s, all of them intelligent enough to understand how their actions may be interpreted, have nevertheless chosen to ignore these precepts: Miss Joan Maynard, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mr. Norman Atkinson, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mr. Sydney Bidwell, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mrs. Renée Short, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mrs. Judith Hart, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mr Russell Kerr, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mr. Frank Allaun, MP"—

[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Miss Jo Richardson, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mr. Douglas Hoyle, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mr. Stan Newens, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mr. Roy Hughes, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mr. Eric Heffer, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mrs. Audrey Wise, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mr. Julius Silverman, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mrs. Lena Jeger, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mr. Denis Skinner, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Millie Miller, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Neil Kinnock, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Harry Selby, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—

Mr Speaker: Order.

Sir P. Bryan: John Mendelson, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."]—
William Wilson, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Tom Swain, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Tom Litterick, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
James Lamond, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to be quiet or they will not know whether their names are there.

Sir P. Bryan: I will continue:
Richard Kelley, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Dan Jones, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Alec Jones, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Eddie Loyden, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—


Gwilym Roberts, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Ian Mikardo, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Michael Foot, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Stan Orme, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Tony Benn, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
CONCLUSION: We believe that all these developments mentioned above, within the NEC, amongst trade union leaders, and in the PLP, provide evidence of a devastating shift of allegiance from democracy towards totalitarian leftism within a major wing of our party. Jim Callaghan, as Leader, should insist that fraternisation between the NEC and Communist Parties, both at home and abroad, should stop. He should condemn the party to party contacts mentioned above. He should demand of the 33 MPs mentioned that they cease to write or lend aid and comfort to Communist or Trotskyite organisations and newspapers. He should instruct the members of his Cabinet named above to do likewise. He should insist that Mr. Jones retract his appalling words in Moscow.
The document speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker. I await your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to the submission by the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). I note in particular that he suggests that, in his view, his complaint has much in common with the complaint made yesterday by the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) and that in consequence it might be convenient to consider the two cases together. I cannot do that.
Questions of privilege are of such formal importance to the House that no occupant of the Chair ought to depart from the acknowledged practice. Therefore, I shall rule upon the hon. Gentleman's complaint tomorrow.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

3.44 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I must now rule on the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham). I have given his complaint the most careful consideration in the light of rulings by my predecessors in cases of this kind. In referring to the rulings of

my predecessors, I am choosing my words with care.
I am aware that Committees—and, in particular, the Select Committee of Parliamentary Privilege of 1967–68—have from time to time suggested that other rules might be applied in deciding such matters. These reports have never, however, been fully debated, still less agreed to, by the House. The House has never, therefore, changed its rules, and the only guidance on which it is proper for me to rely is that of the practice of my predecessors.
I must make it clear that my ruling will be confined to the question whether the complaint of the hon. Member for Paddington shall be given precedence over the Orders of the Day. I am in no way passing judgment on whether the complaint constitutes a breach of privilege or contempt. Others will decide that.
I have come to the conclusion that this is a matter on which the House should have the opportunity to express an opinion. I am therefore prepared to give precedence over the Orders of the Day to a motion concerning the complaint.
Before any such motion is moved, may I remind the House of our time-honoured convention that when a complaint against a Member is considered he should first be given the opportunity to be heard in his place and then withdraw. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) is present and rises, he will catch my eye. If, however, he is willing to submit himself to the judgment of the House without making any statement, I must ask him to withdraw now.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) then withdrew accordingly.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MOTION)

3.46 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I shall move a motion.
I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
It has been the custom of previous Leaders of the House at this stage to suggest to the House that we should seek to


carry this motion without further debate. I think that would be the best course in this instance, also.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The Lord President is extremely sensitive this afternoon. I thought that the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) was pretty sensitive in making this complaint yesterday, but for the Lord President to put this motion to the House seems unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman does not have to move this or any other motion.
I wonder why it is that a matter which could be described as fair political comment, and which could even be described as such with considerable foundation in truth, should be the subject of a motion.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to anticipate what the Committee of Privileges, if the matter goes there, will decide. We are discussing now whether it shall go there.

Mr. Arthur Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) proceeds too far down any road which he is going to travel, I should like to ask you to make one point clear for the record. I am grateful for your ruling. However, are you able to confirm that that which you have suggested should have precedence for referral to the Committee of Privileges is the matter submitted to you in so far as it may be a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House?
I ask this so that you may be able to put on record that any question of defamation or personal damages regarding individual Members named is a matter on which the Committee of Privileges will not be asked to pronounce, but on which individual Members may, if they choose, seek redress in the courts.

Mr. Speaker: Any action that right hon. or hon. Members may take in the courts is, of course, their concern.
My predecessors have often used the expression "There is a prima facie case of a breach of privilege and, therefore, it should have precedence." I have used the expression that it ought to have precedence. I feel in no way inhibited from saying that there is a prima facie

case and that the matter should be given precedence.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that this is terribly important, because no Member would wish to be guilty of any kind of contempt of the House or discourtesy to yourself. What I am asking is whether you can make absolutely clear that the terms of reference of the Committee of Privileges relate to matters referred to it in so far as they may be breaches of privilege or contempts of the House, and would not deal with an issue of personal defamation or damages that Members might seek.

Mr. Speaker: All that I can do is to say that this question has precedence, and the Committee of Privileges has very wide powers and will no doubt want to go into the question in some depth. But I cannot decide what the Committee of Privileges will do.

Mr. Ridley: In no sense do I wish to suggest that the Committee will come to one decision or another, Mr. Speaker. I merely comment on the decision of the Leader of the House to refer this matter by moving this motion. I think that it is questionable when moved by one who himself in past days has questioned similar motions. In this case, although I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that you are entirely right in the ruling that you have just given, it suggests that it may be that the rules are a little out of date, and perhaps if the Leader of the House had been on the mark over the time that he has occupied that high office he would have moved to change those rules a little. It seems to me that what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) has said is no more than fair comment and in many respects may well be entirely justified.

Mr. Michael English: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect the date of that report'? He says that the present Leader of the House could have changed the rules. What about all previous Leaders of the House, including those on both sides of the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I may intervene, by courtesy of the House, for one moment. I hope that the House will


bear in mind that there is a long programme of business before us. [Interruption.] The House will know whether it wishes to go on to debate this matter. It will know that it is up to me to draw the attention of the House to the condition in which we find ourselves.

Mr. Ridley: I intend to be brief, Mr. Speaker. However, I believe that these points should be put. I must, first, reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). It is the present Leader of the House who has the greatest reputation of any Leader of the House for challenging privilege cases. It is the fact that he of all people should have been prepared to move this motion that brought me to my feet.
However, to return to my argument, I quote from Hansard. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South is alleged to have written:
The aim of these people is to turn Britain into the equivalent of a totalitarian East European State."—[Official Report, 16th November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 1128.]
Well, it is. There is nothing wrong in that they should have it as their view. Are they ashamed of it now? Are they retracting from it? Why are they so sensitive about it? If they have spent the last few years proclaiming up and down—

Mr. Douglas Jay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. All that is in order now is to discuss whether this issue should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. It cannot be in order to discuss the merits of the case and to make statements such as the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridley rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no reason why we should not behave with common sense over this question. The question before the House is the motion of the Leader of the House, that this matter be sent to the Committee of Privileges. Naturally, the Committee itself will be debating these issues.

Mr. Ridley: I am merely seeking to argue, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House should not have moved this motion. I am adducing reasons why I think he was far too sensitive in his desire to shut up my hon. Friend the

Member for Aberdeen, South and to put this matter under the carpet by sending it upstairs. After all, as I say, it is fair comment.
I was surprised that the Leader of the House should seek to argue that we should not discuss the merits of this matter. But if the House is to claim as one of its privileges that no hon. Member or other person may pass aspersions upon the political intentions of some hon. Members, the very essence and substance of political debate itself is impossible.
To hear the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on a point of order trying to suggest that this matter, delicate though it is to the Labour Party, should not be discussed, that it is hurtful and wounding that it should ever be discussed at all that the fact that I should seek to raise it makes him feel that I should be shut up seems to show just that very intolerant attitude towards free speech which is at the very heart of the nature of East European States.
I quote again:
by standing for Labour; they are little less than the"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What the House is deciding is whether it supports the recommendation that I made. The question is not the merits of the case that is to go to the Committee of Privileges if the House so decides. We are not going to get into a state of untidiness on this question. The issue before the House is quite clear. I have stated that in my judgment precedence should be given. Following long tradition, the Leader of the House has moved that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. We do not have the main debate before the Committee of Privileges has considered the matter.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that we should make it clear—I hope that you will make it clear—that we are not in any way debating your ruling. What we are debating is the motion moved by the Leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker: That is what I am trying to ensure.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in saying that it is normal on these motions to be able to debate whether it


is right that the House should refer a matter? For the House to decide whether it is right to refer the matter one must, with respect, as I ask you to rule, Mr. Speaker, be able to debate whether this is a matter worthy to be referred.
I think that on previous occasions over the last few years I have heard the Leader of the House himself argue on many occasions when a similar motion has been moved by other Leaders of the House that the matter should not go to the Committee of Privileges because it did not justify being sent to the Committee. Surely, on that basis what my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is saying on the merits must be relevant.

Mr. Ronald Bell: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that on these questions in the past we have often had full debates on the merits of the matter, and after full debates on the merits it has happened that the motion to commit the matter to the Committee of Privileges has been withdrawn because the feeling in the House on the merits was that it should not go upstairs? This debate is without any disrespect to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, which is merely that the debate should have precedence over the Orders of the Day.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. English—the same point of order.

Mr. English: Is there not another distinction in this debate? Has it not been usual in the past, when the Leader of the House has moved the formal motion—and formal motion it is—for him to be supported by the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know about that. Perhaps I may just say that I want to observe the rules of the House and in no way to restrict speech, but what I hope we shall understand is that the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) was quite right in the point of order that he submitted to me. The question is whether the matter shall go to the Committee. All that I am hoping is that we shall avoid the untidiness of just going

over and renewing charges that are to go to the Committee of Privileges, and that hon. Members will, in general, address themselves to that issue.

Mrs. Judith Hart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point raised with you by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham), may one seek your guidance? I ask purely for guidance. If the matter goes to the Committee of Privileges, will there be any offence to the traditions or courtesies of the House if individuals seek their own legal remedies while the Committee of Privileges is sitting? As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of some concern to the individuals, and one would not wish to offend the courtesies of the House by taking one's correct legal remedies.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady has raised an important question. I do not wish to answer off the cuff. I shall give her an answer tomorrow.

Sir John Hall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For our guidance could you inform the House how it is possible to debate whether the motion should be accepted and the matter go to the Committee of Privileges without our going into the background of the case and deciding whether, in the view of the House, it is important that it go to the Committee? You have asked for restraint, Mr. Speaker, and I understand that perfectly well, but I feel that it is very difficult—I am certain that the Leader of the House, from his previous experience when in Opposition, will agree—to debate these matters without taking into account the background of the case as a whole.

Mr. Speaker: I think that we may have become unnecessarily agitated. The background to the issue is very different from just a series of repetitions of what the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) complained about yesterday.

Mr. Ridley: I have no desire, Mr. Speaker, to judge the merits of the case. Nor have I the slightest quarrel with your ruling—far from it—which, I am sure, is entirely right in accordance with the precedents. I merely make the point that the option before us, your having ruled, is whether the House should accept the motion, and that is something which


we must consider because the nature of a breach of privilege is quite rightly laid down in our precedents, but the actual fact of this incident, in my opinion, does not merit that it be referred to the Committee at all.
I am seeking to show that it was just fair political comment, and, although I am sure that, technically, it comes within the scope of our rules, I think it a mistake for the Leader of the House to suggest that it should go to the Committee of Privileges. It seems to me that it is a matter of general public comment. There have been a good many comments in speeches and in articles over many years referring to the fact that there are a large number of Left-wing elements in the Government party.
I think that I can claim as evidence for that statement the fact that the right hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson), as well as other hon. Members, have had trouble as to their continuing candidature for the Labour Party. I am sure that it is in no sense a breach of privilege to suggest that there are persons in the country who are seeking to replace them with other politicians—other candidates—of other political views.
As I see it, all that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South did was to suggest that there are in the Labour Party people of political views or colours totally different from the right or left of the Labour Party. That is well known to be the case.
What I find so extraordinary is that the hon. Member for Paddington should feel so sensitive about it. Surely, he is proud of his extreme Left-wing tendencies—[Interruption.] He proclaims them in this Chamber in speech after speech. Other hon. Members—I cannot claim to know entirely who are in this glorious list of 30—have been proclaiming those very views day after day in debate after debate in this place. I do not understand why they should now say that it is a grievous insult and that they are thoroughly affronted when my hon. Friend says—in tamer language than they have often used themselves—what they know to be true. I had thought that they were proud of it.

Mr. Stanley Newens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has stated as a fact that hon. Members named in the list given by his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) have expressed certain points of view. That is what he has just said. I think that many of my hon. Friends would deny that very strongly, and, in these circumstances, as I understood it, it was to be the business of the Committee of Privileges to investigate this aspect of the problem.
I should be most grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Could you help us by explaining whether it is in order for hon. Members to make statements in the House imputing to other hon. Members here points of view which are to be the subject matter of consideration by the Committee of Privileges before the Committee has had an opportunity to discuss those matters?
If you rule, Mr. Speaker, that it is in order for hon. Members to impute points of view to others in the House, would it be in order for an hon. Member on this side to seek by means of analogy to question the points of view of hon. Members on the Conservative Benches and to make suggestions that those hon. Members have affiliations with other organisations—I am not making suggestions; I am asking you to rule—with the Fascists and the National Front?

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not in danger of falling into the error of thinking that the House has decided to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges when it has not so decided? This debate is about whether it should so decide. We cannot, I submit, assume that it will so decide and therefore argue that we must not ventilate the matters which are relevant to the question whether it should go to the Committee of Privileges. To endeavour to restrict debate on the motion, which you have ruled should have precedence over the Orders of the Day, would be to deny the House the opportunity of forming a considered view on whether the Committee of Privileges should be put to these pains.

Mr. Speaker: I shall reply now to the points of order. First, right hon. and


hon. Members know that it is never wise, and it is not parliamentary practice, to impute motives—certainly, unworthy motives—to one another in debate in the House.

Mr. Newens: That is what is being done.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Second, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is right in suggesting that it is in order for hon. Members to make out a case showing why the matter should not go to the Committee of Privileges, perhaps because they do not think that it is worth it, or to argue that it should go to the Committee of Privileges. On this the House must trust me to keep as careful a line as I can. But there is no firm line in a debate of this sort.

Mr. Ridley: To bring my remarks to a conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS "No".]—I would like to respond to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens). I must confess a terrible weakness, that I had not read my hon. Friend's list. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Harlow was on it, but I presume he was from his point of order. [Interruption.] I have not read the list at all.

Mr. Newens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have two hon. Gentlemen arguing across the Floor. I do not think that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is giving way.

Mr. Arthur Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] Rather than tell me to speak up, hon. Members should shut up. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling in relation to a matter that arose in my submission to you yesterday. You will recall that I explained that, although the names had been included in the document, the Press—so far as I can establish, on the advice of their legal advisers—refrained from publishing the names that had been included. If there are certain things which may be libellous if said outside the House, I would ask whether you feel that the protection of parliamentary privilege within the House should enable an hon. Member deliberately to make available names so that it then becomes permissible for the Press,

on the grounds of reporting, to perpetuate a libel against individual Members of this House? I raise the point now, in the middle of the sincere exposition by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), because I suggest that there is at least one Conservative Member waiting to interrupt his hon. Friend with a list of names which he wishes to state so that the laws of libel outside the House should be overcome. I invite you to rule whether you think that an abuse, or a proper use, of parliamentary privilege.

Mr. Speaker: The ruling which I gave today was on the basis of what the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) read out yesterday. I have to say that it is an undoubted right and ancient privilege in this place for hon. Members to speak in a way in which they would not be free to speak outside this House. If in the course of the debate hon. Members feel that the rest of the speech to which the hon. Member for Paddington referred is relevant to their argument, I cannot rule it out of order. If it is relevant to the argument that they are advancing, it must be heard. The hon. Member for Paddington yesterday read part of the speech and I ruled on it accordingly.

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridley rose—

Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that all that you have said will be accepted by every hon. Member in the House, and always will be. The difference is between the use of a reference to a speech made by an hon. Member outside this House by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is now doing. He said that he presumed, because my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) had risen on a point of order to defend his hon. Friends, that he was one of the people on the list. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is the beginning of the regression from the gutter down to the sewer which is invited by permitting hon. Members to use their reference to speeches as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is now doing. Would you please rule on the question of an hon. Member making a presumption about another hon. Member


on the basis of that hon. Member's attempt to defend his hon. Friends from what he considers to be a calumnious attack.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Surely both these lists have been published and, therefore, if hon. Gentlemen opposite consider that they have been maligned they have a proper redress, if that is what they seek, in the courts? Because these things have been published outside the House, privilege in that context does not apply and it should not inhibit my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in making the point that he is now making.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said earlier that I deprecate any imputations, but I must say to the House that once we embark on this sort of debate, which is raised by privilege, the two sides of the argument must be allowed to be expressed and, further, that hon. and right hon. Members, as long as they are not breaking the rules of the House, take responsibility for their own statements here. I do my best to guard against any charge against an hon. Member if dishonour is implied.

Mr. Ridley: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if the existence of this list causes hon. Members opposite worry.

Mrs. Millie Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance in this matter'? You have said that you have to protect the House against abuse. I put it to you that the behaviour of the Opposition today is rapidly approaching that of the McCarthy era when people were judged guilty by association.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Millie Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The imputation being made against some hon. Members, whose names we do not know, and some whose names we do know, is of various kinds of treachery—treachery as hon. Members of this House, treachery as Members of the party to which they belong or treachery to their constituents to whom they have submitted themselves as members

of a particular party. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that discussions in this House which include attacks on hon. Members who are unable, in the context of points of order, to reply are abusing the privileges of the House.

Mr. Newens: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said that he presumed that I was one of the people named in the list. The hon. Gentleman then went on to state that he had not read the list. Does that not mean that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has come before the House without any knowledge of the list, or the speech, and is prepared to get up in this House and impute motives, and points of view of other hon. Members, when he has no right, on the basis of the statement he has made, to say anything? Is it not in order that you should rule that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is not entitled to impute motives to other Members or, if he does, is this not a case of McCarthyism, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) made reference?

Mr. Speaker: I thought that I had made it clear that imputations are deprecated. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, if it is felt that he has made an imputation, will act accordingly. We cannot avoid a debate in which both sides will be heard in the argument whether the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges.

Mrs. Hart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is arising now has a considerable bearing on the rights of a number of hon. Members. I raised with you earlier—you were kind enough to say that you would give a ruling tomorrow—the question of what individual Members should do in terms of their legal rights outside the House while the matter is with the Committee of Privileges, if it goes there.
But another question now arises which concerns your duty to protect hon. Members. Were legal redress to be sought against individuals concerned with the statement issued yesterday, how far would proceedings in this House today, in which names were given, which would then be a matter for the courts, diminish the rights of hon. Members outside the House? I am sure that you will see the


point that I am making. Leaving aside for a moment what it is all about, I would merely put it to hon. Members opposite that there is a real problem here. Every hon. Member has a right to go to the courts outside. What is done here must not prejudice what happens in the courts, and this clearly has some relevance to what is happening at the moment.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot limit debate in the House on the possibility of some action arising in the courts later.

Mr. Ridley: In answer to the hon. Member for Harlow, I am not sure what the imputation is that I am supposed to have made—whether that it is that he wants to be on the list and is not there or that he is on the list and does not want to be. Perhaps if one of my hon. Friends who is in possession of the list would be kind enough to say who is on it and who is not—

Mr. Michael Brotherton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way—

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to your ruling in response to the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), may I confirm that if any hon. Member reads names which were on the document which was read to you yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham), the effect of reading it in this House would be that any redress for anyone who may be on the list would not be available in the courts? Therefore, any hon. Member who reads that must now do so in that knowledge.

Mr. Speaker: In 600 years of history there have been seven Speakers who were not lawyers. I am pleased to say that I am one. Therefore, I obviously cannot rule on what the hon. Member has said, but I advise him to think over what he has said.

Mr. Brotherton: I remain grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. It may help the House if I were to read out a paragraph of what the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may be lucky enough to catch my eye later but we cannot have an inter

vention used now merely to read something out. His hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is addressing the House.

Mr. Ridley: I wish to close. This speech has gone on for a terribly long time, but very little of it has come from me. The right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) and other hon. Members—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to two aspects of this problem which do not seem to be receiving quite the attention they should from the Chair—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—if I may say so with respect? First, you have clearly ruled that this is a prima facie breach of privilege—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and that it should be sent to the Select Committee for that examination. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) seems to be calling in question your decision in that respect.
Second, it seems to be verging on an abuse of the House when, simply by quoting names at random which are supposed to be on these two lists, certain Opposition Members are doing as much damage as they can by sweeping as wide as they can with a dirty brush, throwing doubts on hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller), who we on this side all know could not be more loyal to this country.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: She could try harder.

Mr. Faulds: This exercise can be reciprocal. I am prepared to give the House now 12 names of Conservative Members whose allegiances I would very much call in question in terms of their contacts with the Right Wing.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House and the hon. Gentleman that the House is debating the Lord President's motion that, following my ruling that this business should have precedence over the Orders of the Day, it should go to the Committee of Privileges. In so doing hon. Members are entitled to advance arguments. Mr. Ridley—to conclude?

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridley rose
—

Mrs. Millie Miller: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for


Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) was good enough to say that he would vouch for my loyalty to this country, and I am very grateful to him for doing so. However, a Member of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), took leave to doubt that. I ask for your protection in this matter against that serious allegation.

Mr. Kinnock: Yes, I heard it.

Mr. Speaker: No right hon. or hon. Member would like any imputation made of the sort to which the hon. Lady has referred—

Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Member is a big twit.

Mr. Speaker: I heard that remark. I must confess that I do not know who made it, but it is totally unworthy of the House of Commons. I hope that hon. Members will control themselves. Mr. Tebbit—to make a statement?

Mr. Tebbit: I do not know whether mine was the remark that you heard, Mr. Speaker, but I will tell you what I said and if you or the House find it offensive, I will of course gladly withdraw it. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) said of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller)—perhaps the words would come more quickly to his mind than to mine—

Mr. Faulds: "Totally loyal to her country".

Mr. Tebbit: I think that he said that the hon. Lady "could not be more loyal" to her country. My comment was that perhaps she could try harder. If that is offensive, I gladly withdraw it.

Hon. Members: Of course it is.

Mr. Lawson: The other hon. Member should admit what he said.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the House goes on like this I shall have to suspend the proceedings. I will not have right hon. and hon. Members just shouting at each other across the Chamber. When I said that I had heard something, it was not the remark made by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit); it was another offensive remark. The hon. Member for Chingford has withdrawn it. Mr. Ridley.

Mr. Ridley: I could have finished a long time ago, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bryan Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we are debating a serious motion and at the conclusion of the debate have to make serious judgments on our course of action in terms of which Lobby we enter, may I bring to your attention the difficulty that is posed by your earlier indication that you will rule tomorrow on the representation put to you by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart)?
It surely cannot be contended that it is unimportant to hon. Members seeking to reach a serious judgment on the merits of the decision to be taken this afternoon whether that decision will have any effect upon the rights of hon. Members to have recourse to the courts. In view of that and the fact that you have clearly indicated that not until tomorrow will a firm judgment be made upon that point of order, is it possible for the House to continue to consider the issue before it and reach a considered judgment?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) is not correct. The debate today will in no way preclude any hon. or right hon. Member from taking court action if he feels that he has been defamed outside the House. That is not the concern of the House. The concern of the House is whether the Committee of Privileges should give attention to this matter. Has the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury completed his speech?

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridley rose—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When a similar point of order was raised just before the House debated whether matters concerning Mr. Stonehouse should be referred to the Committee, my recollection is that your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Lloyd, replied that with no amount of notice could he from the Chair give a ruling on whether what went on in the House would preclude an action—in that case a criminal action—outside. Is not that parallel a good one—that hon. Members cannot expect the House to rule on whether a court outside will entertain—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that we get on with the debate.

Mrs. Millie Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance whether you informed me earlier that the hon. Member for Chingford had withdrawn his imputation?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I did.

Mr. Ridley: All I urge is that the House should not refer this matter to—

Mr. Maurice Orbach: Coward.

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I warn the House that if we have any more of this, I shall suspend the Sitting. Hon. Members are behaving disgracefully this afternoon.

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard an hon. Member below the Gangway opposite call an hon. Member a coward. Is that a parliamentary term?

Mr. Speaker: It is an unparliamentary expression and should be withdrawn if it was used.

Mr. Orbach: I am delighted to withdraw it in the House, but I shall repeat it to the hon. Gentleman outside.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order that a withdrawal should in future take the form which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach)?

Mr. Speaker: The House is very excited. As I understood it, I said that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw the charge. What he does outside the Chamber is not my responsibility.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that you would rule tomorrow on the question of privilege submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). In that submission, which has relevance to the Lord President's motion, he included all the names that were mentioned.
We have heard, and some of us have read, the names mentioned in the subject for discussion today. Will you rule on

whether today hon. Members whose names were included in that list are permitted to vote, and on whether tomorrow the Lord President, whose name is in the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden, will be permitted to move a motion should you rule that it is in order?

Mr. Speaker: The answer to both questions is "Yes". The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who withdrew whilst we continued our discussion, will be free to vote when the Division comes. It is a convention that he should withdraw.

Mr. Ridley: Hon. Members should not be so sensitive. All that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South has done is to accuse a number of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway—and perhaps on the Front Bench—of being Communists. If that accusation makes them as cross as they appear to be this afternoon, they are trying to do two things at once and not thinking things out for themselves.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I do not propose to comment on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) because I believe there will be other and better ways of establishing the validity or otherwise of what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). It will be possible to find out the validity of what he said, not the validity of the euphemistic gloss which the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury put upon it.
I do not intervene to take part in the debate but, if you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to make a personal statement. I have the honour to have been selected by the House as a member of the Select Committee of Privileges. I believe that I am the only hon. Member serving on that Committee; all the others are right hon. Members. That being so, and as I am included in the list mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, I rise to express to you, Sir, and to the House the hope that the House will forgive me if I absent myself from the proceedings of the Committee while this matter is under discussion, if it is referred to the Committee. [Interruption.]

4.39 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: The whole House will unite in one thing and that is in sympathy with yourself, Mr. Speaker. You find yourself in an incredibly difficult situation.
I recognise that when accusations of this kind are made it is almost certain that strong feelings will be aroused. You earlier called attention to the unhappy condition in which we find ourselves. The condition has been getting steadily unhappier since then, but I may be able to help the House by saying that my right hon. Friends and, I hope, my hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches will wish to support the motion and to send the matter to the Committee of Privileges. [Holy. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sure that my hon. Friends will accept that, if serious accusations are made by Members of Parliament against their colleagues, or if those accusations which were not intended to be too wounding are taken as being wounding, there should be some inquiry into them in a less passionate atmosphere than the one we have engendered this afternoon.
Perhaps the Committee has a useful contribution to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was absolutely entitled to make the speech he made this afternoon and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having supported his right. There can be no question of Governments moving motions like this and expecting them to go through on the nod, whether or not objections to the motion are regarded by the Government as reasonable.
In view of one remark made by an hon. Member opposite, I should say that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) made the speech which has been complained of outside this House and it was published. I saw it in at least two newspapers. I think the complaint that these names have somehow been withheld is not justified.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I have seen reports of the speech, but I have not seen newspapers containing the names. Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on whether he has seen them and tell us where?

Mr. Peyton: I would rather not name the newspapers, but I will communicate

with the hon. Gentleman afterwards. My recollection is that at least two newspapers carried the names.
I do not wish to raise the temperature of the House, but I think that my hon. Friends have some justification for expressing surprise that the accusation of Left-wing loyalties should be considered by so many people to be so wounding. That is what is stirring up feeling on this side of the House.
We accept the motion and we shall support it. It would be in the interests of the House to dispose of it as quickly as possible.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Foot: What the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has said could be of great help to the House. I certainly think that no hon. Members can complain because a motion of this character has been moved by the Leader of the House in accordance with the normal system of the House.
When the Speaker has ruled in the past as he has today, in most cases the Leader of the House has moved the motion which I moved earlier. I certainly cannot complain that hon. Members have sought to continue the debate, because I have on numerous occasions in the past sought to continue such debates.
I was a member of the 1968 Committee of Privileges which investigated the question of privileges and made recommendations for alterations in our procedure. But these did not commend themselves to the House and they have never been carried into practice. Therefore, we are operating under the old system.
I have followed exactly the precedents—as you have, Mr. Speaker— and hon. Members are entitled to engage in debate. I have no power or authority to ask them to curtail the debate, but I think that those who have listened to the discussion so far—and I am not reflecting on any hon. Member—would conclude that we could get into a discussion which would not be beneficial to the House.
We are not ruling out a debate when the Committee of Privileges has reported to the House. The difference is that when we have that debate the facts will have been examined and conclusions reached by the Committee. The House will then be able to pass judgment without necessarily accepting what the Committee has


said. I think that is the best way to proceed.
If any hon. Members decide to continue the debate, it is not for me to be censorious, because I have done the same myself on previous occasions. Maybe on those occasions, in my belief, the cases were much more dubious, but that is a matter on which the Committee will come to its own view.
In response to what the right hon. Member for Yeovil has said, and in the circumstances described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart)—that action may be taken outside and nothing which happens in the House impedes action outside—it would be better for us to come to a fairly early decision. We should avoid a major debate which would not be easy to stop and which would not be conducive to the best settlement of this matter.

Mr. Robert Adley: Many of us listened to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said about voting for this motion, but can the Leader of the House answer two simple questions') Will the Committee sit in private or in public in view of procedure adopted in other Select Committees which might be relevant? Who, if anybody, will be invited to give evidence?

Mr. Foot: The Committee will act in the same way as all previous Committees of Privilege in such matters. There are ample precedents. They normally sit in private and the decision as to who is to appear and how is a matter for the Committee. It will take precedent into account.
I can see that some of my hon. Friends may legitimately feel that statements have been made by hon Members opposite which they have had no opportunity to rebut. I can understand their feelings, but we shall have a later opportunity to discuss this.
I have no power to end this debate, but I very much hope that we can make it brief. I hope that my hon. Friends will take into account the fact that the proposal for the submission of this matter to the Committee was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham). It was on the basis of that submission that I proposed the motion

to the House. We have some very important other business and I hope that this debate will be brief.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: I am reluctant to intervene following what the Leader of the House said about the desirability of curtailing the debate, but there are certain points which must be viewed in a broader context before they are put to the Committee.
When this Chamber was destroyed by enemy action, there was considerable discussion about the form in which it should be rebuilt. There were many who favoured the introduction of a circular or semi-circular Chamber such as those in many Parliaments overseas. It was Sir Winston Churchill's view that we should stick to the rigid division which exists today. I cannot help thinking that although at the time I entirely subscribed to his view, perhaps he was mistaken. The spectrum of our views is much more circular than it is divided between one side of the House and the other.
Here we come to the nub of the problem which is to be put to the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) alleged that there were hon. Members and perhaps right hon. Members on the other side of the House who, in a sense, defrauded their constituents by standing on the Labour manifesto while taking views which are far to the left of it. It could also be said that there are Members on the Government Front Bench who have taken views to the right of the manifesto. I do not wish to go into that topic, but there is clearly a problem whether some hon. Members represented themselves as belonging to an association—the Labour movement—and yet were pursuing views which were not in keeping with the officially pronounced views of that movement. We must consider whether that is an appropriate position for hon. Members or whether it amounts to a defrauding of the electorate.
The second issue is more difficult and delicate. My hon. Friends and I represented that there were hon. Members on the other side who were acting for alien interests. I understand that in law one is supposed to have willed the things that one would normally be intending to will. Some hon. Members on the other side, in


the general view of many of us, have objectively put forward views which are contrary to the consensus of what opinion in the House would regard as the national interest. I do not say that they did it in the service of an enemy or in any way as a deliberate act of treason. Nevertheless, there may be a case for believing that the views to which they subscribed were in themselves injurious to the interests of the country. We have not had a situation such as this since the Jacobite situation at the end of the seventeenth century when hon. Members of the House, as it was then constituted, believed that the higher interest of the country was contrary to what could be called the interest of the State.
These questions should be put to the Committee of Privileges and I shall support the motion so that the problem can be referred to that Committee and investigated in some detail

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, but I find it regrettable that the matter should have been brought before the House at all. I have never liked the idea of matters going to the Committee of Privileges. But I recognise—and I have argued this in the House—that if one is a poor man about whom untrue statements are made, and if one cannot take on the Press barons or those with large incomes, one has no alternative but to ask for the protection of the House. There are, therefore, certain circumstances in which it is right to refer matters to the Committee of Privileges.
I am not particularly happy with this case because politicians live with smears and slanders throughout their political lives. I was a member of the Communist Party and was expelled. Some people have never understood that I was expelled and some people have never understood any of my writings. That is their fault, not mine. But it becomes a serious matter if my constituents, or those of any other hon. Member are told that because we have Left-wing political views we are masquerading in the Labour Party and are Communists, Trotskyites, members of the International Socialists or some other organisation. That is then

serious, as it would be if we on this side of the House said that hon. Members with whom we totally disagree on many issues were members of the National Front or a similiar organisation. That would be wrong and intolerable, and that is the point that worries me this afternoon.
I am worried at the frivolity with which the matter has been treated in the House today. I appeal to hon. Members and warn them that if we go on like this we shall undermine our democratic rights and principles and perhaps undermine the House of Commons. I believe in the House of Commons. I believe in parliamentary democracy. We should be careful of anything which undermines that parliamentary democracy. There are people outside the House who do not believe in it and who are only too keen at all times to chip away at the basic rights that have been built up by the people of our country.
I was worried about what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said. It is legitimate for hon. Members to say that a point of view that I or other of my hon. Friends put forward could, in their opinion, lead to the type of system that exists in Eastern Europe. In the same way, I could say that the arguments of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph)—with whom I have been having a discussion in a well-known national newspaper—could lead to the type of military dictatorship that exists in Chile.

Mr. Lawson: Mr. Lawson rose —

Mr. Heifer: I shall not give way at the moment because I want to develop my argument.
I do not believe, for example, that Opposition hon. Members who are passionately concerned with the defence of the capitalist system believe that they should turn to a dictatorship to reach that end. But I could argue that some of their actions could lead to such a state, as they can argue in reverse.

Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his courtesy in giving way. I accept that he genuinely believes in parliamentary democracy, but does he not realise that the people who do not believe in parliamentary democracy, to whom he referred, are working within the


Labour Party at Newham and at Hayes and Harlington and in the 30 other constituencies referred to by the Prime Minister in his "Panorama" broadcast? There is no comparison between that and anything that is going on in our party.

Mr. Heifer: The hon. Member has proved to me that I should never have given way.

Mrs. Renee Short: The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) knows nothing about it. What he says is untrue.

Mr. Heffer: The intervention by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was typical of the sort of statement we are hearing at the present time. It is wrong for hon. Members to impute that other hon. Members are actively working for alien interests, outside forces or countries outside the United Kingdom.
We can all bare our breasts about our patriotism. I get very angry when I sometimes hear hon. Members talking about the patriotism of Labour Members. We all have war records, or most of us have. We have all played our part, as did our fathers before us. But that is irrelevant. What is important is that we should distinguish between the argument that we believe that a certain point of view can lead to something and actually saying that hon. Members were acting on behalf of alien forces and belonged to political organisations other than the one to which they said they belonged. That was what worried me about the speech of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. He did not draw that distinction. This afternoon I have seen too many other hon. Members failing to draw the distinction, and that is very worrying for the future of the country.
The House must begin to cool it, and I mean cool it. We must have rational, reasonable and serious discussion on the issues. It will sometimes be heated, but that is where we must be. If we step over that line, we shall do considerable harm to the country's future, to democratic rights and principles and to the democratic system.
I am not very happy about the motion. I am sorry that the matter ever came up in this way, but now that it is here we

had better send it to the Select Committee. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to support the motion, but I again appeal to them to cool it, because the position is getting too dangerous and too serious for the future of our country.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I would agree with part of what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helier) has said if we were talking about alien interests, but the words used were "alien creed". That brings us very close to the relevant matter. I am against the matter's being sent to a Committee, because I ask myself "What will the Committee do with it?"
It has been suggested that certain hon. Members on the Government Benches are Marxists or crypto-Communists and that they aim at a totalitarian society. I understand from "Erskine May" that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) is fully entitled to plead justification and to seek to prove his allegations. Suppose he does. Is the Committee then to take a deep breath and sit for months and months, hearing arguments and perhaps evidence—

Mr. Kinnock: It is a dirty name that was used.

Mr. Bell: It is a name, anyway.
Is the Committee then to report to us on the state of mind of 10 or perhaps 30 hon. Members opposite, saying "Yes. So-and-so aims at a totalitarian society, but such-and-such a Member does not", or "In the case of X we do not find it proved beyond reasonable doubt that he aimed at a totalitarian society, but in the case of another chap we do", or "It is half true of So-and-so"? The situation is ridiculous.
The question of privilege may reasonably be raised, and a matter go to the Committee, when the suggestion is that somebody is working for an outside interest, that he has accepted money improperly or behaved in a corrupt manner. But when the argument is about political opinions and objectives, how can one use privilege, and what sensible use can one make of the Committee of Privileges?
The hon. Member for Walton said that we must cool it, and have rational discussion. That is an excellent aim. People


have been saying that for a few hundred years. It usually has some effect, for about five minutes. It is like passing a crash on the road. Everybody drives more carefully for anything up to two miles after that, and then one gets back to the old competitive operation. The hon. Gentleman who says "Cool it" may tomorrow, on some other subject, be quite warm in his denunciations and defences. If I may say so with great respect to him, he is not the most icy-cold Member in debate. He feels his politics passionately sometimes, and why not? So do we all. We would not be in this House if we did not care rather strongly about our politics. Therefore, we cannot cool it. What we must do is to keep within some undefined limit—one which I think we all sense or understand, even if we cannot define it. One goes to a certain point.
We all know that there is an element of truth in what is said, in as much as certain hon. Members on the Government Benches are a great deal further to the Left than are others. But the question for the Committee would be how much truth and how much exaggeration there was in what my hon. Friend said. When the report came back, we would all have our individual views about the rights and wrongs and value of the report.
It is not for me to advise the House. This is just a debate where we put forward our own views. But I do not think that I shall be helped at all by a Select Committee. This is politics. We are all politicians, and have our own judgments. If someone overstates a case, he weakens it. If someone understates a case, he lends strength to his argument. Can we not leave the matter there?
I have no doubt that prima facie this was a case of breach of privilege. There have been many such cases in the past where Mr. Speaker has rightly ruled that prima facie there was a breach of privilege, and the House, after debate, has not disagreed but has said "Yes, but we do not want to do any more about it because there is no point". That is exactly what I feel about this matter.
After all, some very harsh things are said. "Communist" is perhaps the epithet that tends to be thrown in the direction of the Labour Benches and "Fascist" the epithet that comes in this direction. It does not mean very much.
I have been called a Fascist many times, but I am always borne up by the thought that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has been called a black Fascist pig. I do not know why "black". It should perhaps have been "Red Fascist Pig".

Mr. Lawson: Mr. Lawson rose—

Mr. Bell: I shall not give way. I think that my hon. Friend has had his ration of interventions.
Until one has been called a Fascist pig, one has not thrown a six and cannot start in the game of politics as it is played nowadays. I say with respect to hon. Members on the Government Benches who have shown themselves rather sensitive that until they have been called crypto-Communists and have been said to be aiming at a totalitarian State they have not been blooded in the political battle. It is no different from hon. Members on this side of the House being called black Fascist pigs.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. and learned Friend is wrong.

Mr. Bell: If my hon. Friend thinks that I am wrong, I shall give way to him.

Mr. Lawson: There is a very serious issue here, perhaps different from the issue that hon. Members opposite think it to be, but nevertheless serious. Lying behind the accusation by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), which has prompted this debate, is an issue which should not be brushed aside in the frivolous manner that my hon. and learned Friend appears to be adopting.

Mr. Bell: I must say to my hon. Friend that I am not being frivolous. I am saying that this is part of the rough and tumble of politics. The hon. Member for Walton is part of that rough and tumble. We sometimes use picturesque phrases, and somewhat heated expressions. The question whether that sort of expression should go to the Committee of Privileges is a serious matter because privilege is serious, but otherwise it is not serious. There has been no imputation against the moral character of the Labour Members—[Interruption.] Some Labour Members are becoming excited and using words that never appeared in the document.
The charge of political duplicity is made in the House every week. It is part of the ordinary interchange of politics. Ministers are accused of deceiving the public. They are often accused of deceiving the House. That is all part of the debate that takes place. The point to which I return is that nothing is gained by sending this sort of dispute to a Committee. What will it do with it? Will it say "We do not think that there was deception"? This is a matter of political argument and discussion, and we can resolve it on the Floor of the House.
My view is that we should not disagree with Mr. Speaker if we said that we did not want the matter to go any further. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is at home with this dichotomy of approach. I can remember the famous occasion when this type of debate lasted for six hours and ended in a Division at 10 o'clock. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman voted with me and others for the defeat of the motion that had been moved by the then Leader of the House. He did not do that because he disagreed with Mr. Speaker's ruling or because he did not think there was a technical breach of privilege; he did it because he saw no point in sending the question of privilege to the Committee of Privileges. That was a matter of political judgment and that is the judgment to which I invite the House to come, otherwise we shall discredit ourselves a great deal more than we shall repair our credit.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: First, I address myself briefly to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), as I believe it contained the crucial issue on which the decision of the House must centre. I completely dissent from his main point, which he put extremely mildly, but his contributions often go to the root of the matter.
Having announced that he would call upon his right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was rather surprised that there should be a number of Labour Members so concerned about being accused of being Left-wing. That is not the issue. I do not know of any Member who would be concerned about being called Right-wing or Left-wing. I know many right hon. and hon. Members who would be quite proud to be called Right-

wing. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) is a good example. I have many right hon. and hon. Friends who would be proud to be called Left-wing. That is not the issue, and the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience in politics, knows that it is not. He should not put that on record.
The issue is far more serious, and it is because of its seriousness that I support the motion. As the House knows, I am not keen on referring motions of this sort to the Committee of Privileges. I have proved that, as has the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, in past debates and in past votes.
What is the seriousness of the issue? It is the precise nature of the charges that have been made quite deliberately. They are made more serious because, mutatis mutandis, they are a repetition of a charge made about a week ago by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour), who speaks on defence matters from the Opposition Front Bench. They repeat the charge that the right hon. Gentleman made to a Conservative gathering in the North-West. Although the term "Young Conservative" might be applied to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), it would he false flattery to apply it to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham.
These charges must be taken seriously. I am convinced that behind them is a deliberate campaign to denounce and smear the Labour Party. It is wholly unjustified and based on a tissue of false accusations in terms of the statement that forms the basis of the motion. The charges are wholly false accusations. Therefore, it is necessary to take the proper parliamentary action. It is right that such action should be taken on behalf of the House and the Members who are part of the collective unit. Everything else is for individuals.
Why is that? Like the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, I have always taken an extremely narrow view of privilege. I repeated that view the other day when we were setting up the Committee to inquire into corruption. That is still my view. Privilege is not for the protection of Members; it is to safeguard Members in doing their work for their constituents. Only when that work is threatened or likely to be threatened are


we right to invoke the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Adley: Did the hon. Gentleman advocate that the Poulson Committee should sit in public? If he did, does he agree that the same situation should apply and that now that a Labour Member has gone to the extent of raising this subject as a matter of privilege in the House and has sought to bring it before the Committee of Privileges, presumably with the object of clearing names, the best thing to do is to proceed in public?

Mr. Mendelson: There is no question of clearing anybody's name. The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I could deal with the question whether such a Committee should be in public or in private, but that has nothing to do with the matter with which I am now dealing.
I take an extremely narrow view of the purposes of the Committee of Privileges. Only where a Member's work for his constituents is affected or likely to be affected is it right to refer any matter to the Committee. That is the effect in this case, because one of the false accusations made in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South is that certain Members are alleged not to have told their constituents that they are aiming to turn the country into an Eastern satellite. They are alleged not to have told their electors that they intend to work for the purposes of another political party or political grouping. Those are the most serious accusations against the professional ability of a Member to do his work for his constituents. It is on those decisive grounds that we must refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. It is the narrowest of cases, but the most relevant. It brings to the ground the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield. There is a clear-cut case for the involvement of the Committee of Privileges.
I turn to the wider implications. In the hurly-burly of politics, and in the fight, I believe that any political party with great traditions is ill-advised to follow those who might advise it, shortsightedly, to base its political fortunes upon smear campaigns upon the unemployed, upon those who receive some

social security payments for their families, and upon false accusations about the records of its opponents. It may appear attractive at first sight, but the people of this country are too experienced, too honourable, and too far-sighted to listen to those who base their campaign on such considerations. I beg all those who might be misled into that campaign to desist from it.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: We have heard a speech of great skill delivered with great compassion by the hon. Member for Penistonc (Mr. Mendelson). It was a speech with most of which most Opposition Members would agree. But it is the very skill and ability with which the hon. Gentleman delivered his speech that leads some of us to wonder whether we have not stumbled into far more serious a situation than even he is willing to admit. He has suggested that it would be wrong for any Member of this House to say that there is a possibility that those who are working against the interests of this country might be elected to this House. That seems to me to be a dangerous denial of our ability to defend this nation.
Let me phrase carefully what I say, so as not to make any accusations or impugn any motives of any Member of this House. If we were to follow the hon. Gentleman's advice literally, should such a penetration by an agent of an alien power ever take place, no Member of this House could seek to expose it without himself or herself risking an attack for indulging in a smear campaign. It worries me that the freedom of speech on both sides of the House should be thus limited by fear of such accusations or of those agents whom we all know to be operating throughout the world—agents of what is now called disinformation and disintegration.
We have all heard stories spread by members of various intelligence services that Members of Parliament, trade union leaders, industrialists, and others, are in close contact with the agents of alien Powers. Perhaps, sometimes, those stories are true; perhaps, sometimes, they are false and are spread simply to arouse distrust among ourselves, to bring our institutions into disrepute and, perhaps, to create the very scenes that we saw in Parliament this afternoon.
At first, listening to this debate, I had no intention of taking part and, as the debate continued, I began to think that the right lion. Gentleman the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) were wrong in seeking to send what at first seemed to be a trivial matter to the Committee of Privileges. But I now think that that is the right course. We must place at least part of the responsibility on that Committee to ensure that we can truly speak freely in this House; so that should this House be penetrated by enemies of our people and our democracy we should he able to point the finger of accusation at them. After all, we allow great liberty at present. It is no crime in this country, thank God, to seek to overturn the existing regime. It is no crime to believe in a totally different form of political system. It is no crime to be a revolutionary. It is only when a foreign Power conies into the matter that there can be any possible question of crime—or any democratic objection.
Let us hope that if we send this matter to the Committee of Privileges its members will have taken note of this debate and will take it upon themselves to consider the activities of those who seek to use parliamentary procedures and parliamentary institutions to destroy parliamentary democracy itself.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Until about half an hour ago I, too, had no intention of intervening, and my intervention now will be brief. If this matter is forced to a Division, I shall vote against its going to the Committee of Privileges—for the very reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) at the end of his speech. What he virtually said was that the public do not take much notice of what is written in the Press. I am inclined to agree with him. In the past seven or eight months I have had a fair amount of muck thrown at me by various sections of the Press. I have in my hand a copy of one newspaper carrying my photograph, under which is the grave description "The Assassin". That was a caption in a newspaper in May.
I do not think that anybody takes much notice of what is said in the Press. However, I believe that the visual media have a greater effect on shaping public

opinion than the kind of rubbish written by some of the silly journalists who sit in the Press Gallery in this House and get paid for it.
I do not understand what some Labour Members are getting so worked up about. People have said these things about Labour Members of Parliament for 20 or 30 years. It has been said at one time or another that Labour Members are all Communists, that there are Reds under the bed, and all the rest of it. Nobody takes any notice of it, and, despite what has been said in the Press, Labour Governments have still been elected. If the proceedings of the House had been broadcast this afternoon in the period from 4 pm. to 4.30 p.m. the public would have had a revelation about their Members of Parliament far more serious than anything that has appeared in the Press.
I appeal to Labour Members not to get worked up about these matters, because they have been happening for years. Surely it is a waste of time for right hon. and hon. Members to sit in a Committee listening to a lot of silly nonsense. What will happen is that the hon. Member against whom charges are laid will drag the thing out; he will try to make a political meat pie out of it; he will seek to support what lie has said; and then somebody will go before the Committee and seek to put up a defence. We shall have a repetition of what happened this afternoon, with people reading out names in an effort to get them on the record.
We shall only fan the fire if we send this matter to the Committee of Privileges. My advice is that we should pour some water on the situation and damp it all down, so that the fire cannot be kept alight. I shall vote against the motion.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I have great sympathy with a good deal of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). I believe that one way of ensuring temperate debate in this House and of seeking to deal with matters coolly is to act as mature people and judge issues as they arise, on some occasions by treating them with good humour, on some occasions killing them by jeers, and on


other occasions by deciding the most appropriate way to deal with the situation.
This issue, however, is different, and it is different partly for the reason indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). Here is a deliberate representation of hon. Members of this House not as Communists, as Trotskyites, as revolutionaries, as anarchists, or as anything else, but as men, and possibly even women, who have contrived and conspired to secure election to this place by defrauding their constituents—that was the word used—in order that they can have an influence on the conduct of affairs in this country for the benefit of an alien creed, an alien regime, an alien ideology and an alien purpose.
That is something entirely different, and it threatens the whole basis of the democratic standard on which every single candidate, of whatever party, presents himself for election. I appeal to Conservative Members to understand the implications of this threat. It is the fact that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) did not say that some of my hon. Friends were Communists, or any of the other terms that he used, or that they were definitely affiliates or members of political parties for which they did not stand at election. No, he did not say that. He called them crypto-Communists, and used the most grotesque weapon that can be used against a parliamentary democracy—guilt by association.
It was not without purpose that John Kennedy—no great Socialist or defender of crypto-Communists, but someone who learned his politics in the age of McCarthy in America, in many respects—said that rumour is a greater poison to democracy than the lie.
The reason that we must submit this matter to the Committee of Privileges for the coolest and most thorough and most rigorous examination by Members from among our body is that they can, item by item, examine the rumour, the guilt by association, the implication, the imputation, and so on.
None of us in this House can answer the question "When did you stop beating

your wife? "None of us can prove that he was not influenced, in the very conduct of his business and the very pursuit of his ideologies, by those with whom he had to associate.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is, with respect, a serious point of order. It appears to me that the Patronage Secretary is about to move "That the Question be now put", and I express the view—if I am right in my assumption—that it would be quite inappropriate for the debate to be closured. When a matter before the House is of such importance as to be sent to the Committee of Privileges, I suggest that it is quite inappropriate for the debate to be closured so soon.

Mr. Speaker: Such debates have been closured in the past. I say that without anticipating what will happen.

Mr. Kinnock: I shall bring my remarks to an immediate conclusion, Mr. Speaker, by saying to fellow democrats that we have a machine for giving tolerant and thorough consideration to such business. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield asked what the Committee will do. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I suggest that the Committee can provide us with another protection against the distortion of democracy that was seen in the Moscow show trials, in the activities of the Nazis, and in the activities of Joe McCarthy. It can ensure that if a Member is attacked it is for being what he is and not what someone might say he is, with the intention of profiting from the allegation.

Mr. John Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) said a moment ago in raising a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair must not be put under pressure on these matters.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Cocks): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Cocks) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

Division No. 410.]
AYES
[5.35 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Allaun, Frank
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McNamara, Kevin


Anderson, Donald
Faulds, Andrew
Madden, Max


Archer, Peter
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Magee, Bryan


Armstrong, Ernest
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallatieu, J. P. W.


Ashley, Jack
Fitt, Gerard (Bellast W)
Marks, Kenneth


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Flannery, Martin
Marquand, David


Atkinson, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Bagfer, Gordon A. T.
Ford, Ben
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Forrester, John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Barnelt, Rt Kon Joel (Heywood)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Bates, Alf
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Meacher, Michael


Bean, R. E.
Freeson, Reginald
Meilish, Rt Hon Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mendelson, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mlkardo, Ian


Bidwell, Sydney
George, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Glnsburg, David
Miller, Mrs Millie (Iltord N)


Boardman, H.
Golding, John
Moonman, Eric


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Gould, Bryan
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Graham, Ted
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Bradley, Tom
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moyle, Roland


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, John (Islington C)
Newens, Stanley


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grocott, Bruce
Noble, Mike


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Orbach, Maurice


Buchanan, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Ovenden, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hattersiey, Rt Hon Roy
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton &amp; P)
Hatton, Frank
Padley, Walter


Campbell, Ian
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Palmer, Arthur


Canavan, Dennis
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Park, George


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Parker, John


Carmlchael, Neil
Hooley, Frank
Parry, Robert


Carter, Ray
Horam, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Pendry Tom


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Perry, Ernest


Clemltson, Ivor
Huckfield, Les
Phipps, Dr Colin


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Radice, Giles


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hughes, Roy (Newport) 
Price, William (Rugby)


Conlan, Bernard
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cook, Robin F. (Edln C)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cowans, Harry
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Craigen, J. M. (Mafyhill)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cronin, John
John, Brynmor
Rodger, George (Chorley)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
 Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rooker, J. W.


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roper, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, Ted


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Ryman, John


Davles, Bryan (Enfield N)
Ketley, Richard
Sandelson, Neville


Davles, Denzll (Llaneill)
Kllroy-Sltk, Robert
Selby, Harry


Davles, Ilor (Gower)
Kinnock, Neil
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamble, David
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Deakins, Eric
Lamborn, Harry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamond, James
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dempsey, James
Leadbltter, Ted
Sirkln, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sillars, James


Dormand, J. D.
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Litterick, Iorn
Skinner, Dennis


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loyden, Eddie
Small, William


Dunn, James A.
Luard, Evan
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Snape, Peter


Eadle, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Spearing, Nigel


Edge, Geoft
Mabon, Dr J Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McDonald, Dr Oonaoh
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, John (Brlgg &amp; Scun)
McElhone, Frank
Sloddart, David


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stott, Roger


Ennala, David
MacKenzie, Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Evan, Fred (Caerphllry)
Mackintosh, John P.
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Evan, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 256.

Swain, Thomas
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Watkins, David
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Thomas, Datydd (Merioneth)
Watkinson, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Weetch, Ken
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Weitzman, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wellbeloved, James
Woodall, Alec


Thorne, Slan (Preston South)
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Wool, Robert


Tierney, Sydney
White, James (Pollok)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Tomiinson, John
Whitehead, Phillip
Young, David (Bolton E)


Torney, Tom
Whitlock, William



Urwin, T. W.
Wigley, Dafydd
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. James Tinn and


Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Mr. Joseph Ashton.


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Forman, Nigel
McCusker, H


Aitken, Jonathan
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Macfarlane, Neil


Alison, Michael
Fox, Marcus
MacGregor, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Freud, Clement
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Awdry, Daniel
Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David


Baker, Kenneth
Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marten, Neil


Banks, Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mates, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Gilmour, Sir John (East File)
Maude, Angus


Bell, Ronald
Glyn, Dr Alan
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mawby, Ray


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Goodlad, Alastair
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Benyon, W.
Gorst, John
Mayhew, Patrick


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Meyer, Sir Arrthony


Biflen, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mills, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman


Body, Richard
Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Moate, Roger


Boltomley, Peter
Grylls, Michael
Molyneaux James


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hall, Sir John
Monro, Hector


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Fergus


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hannam, John
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Bralne, Sir Bernard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint


Brittan, Leon
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brotherton, Michael
Havers, Sir Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Mudd, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Neave, Airey


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Henderson, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony


Budgen, Nick
Keseltine, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Hicks, Robert
Newton, Tony


Burden, F. A.
Hlggins, Terence L.
Nott, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hodgson, Robin
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Carlisle, Mark
Holland. Philip
Page, John (Harrow West)


Carson, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Channon, Paul
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pardoe, John


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Parkinson, Cecil


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hurd, Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Penhaligon, David


Clegg, Walter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Percival, Ian


Cockcroft, John
James, David
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Cope, John
Jenkin.RtHonP. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Pink, R. Bonner


Cordle, John H.
Jesse!, Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Corrie, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Costaln, A. P.
Jopllng, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Crawford, Douglas
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kilfedder, James
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kimball, Marcus
Reid, George


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Drayson, Burnaby
King, Tom (Brldgwater)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian


Dunlop, John
Knox, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lamont, Norman
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Elliott, Sir William
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eyre, Reginald
Lawrence. Ivan
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawson, Nigel
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian
Royle, Sir Anthony


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Loverldge, John
Sainsbury, Tim


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrindle, Robert
Scott, Nicholas







Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tapsell, Peter
Walters, Dennls


Shepherd, Colin
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Warren, Kenneth


Shersby, Michael
Tebbit, Norman
Watt, Hamish


Sims, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Sinclair, Sir George
Thatcher, Rt Han Margaret
Wells, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Welsh, Andrew


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Thompson, George
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Speed, Keith
Townsend, Cyril D.
Winterton, Nicholas


Spence, John
Trotter, Neville
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Stanbrook, Ivor
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Younger, Hon George


Stanley, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard



Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Viggers, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wakeham, John
Mr. Carol Mather.


Stokes, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

Division No. 411.]
AYES
[5.47 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Gilbert, Dr John


Allaun, Frank
Corbett, Robin
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cordle, John H.
Glnsburg, David


Anderson, Donald
Corrle, John
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Archer, Peter
Cowans, Harry
Golding, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gould, Bryan


Ashley, Jack
Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Gourlay, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Crawford, Douglas
Graham, Ted


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelttiorne)
Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cronln, John
Grant, John (Islington C)


Atkinson, Norman
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Gray, Hamish


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Grieve, Percy


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cryer, Bob
Grocott, Bruce


Baker, Kenneth
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Hardy, Peter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davidson, Arthur
Harper, Joseph


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Davles, Bryan (Enfield N)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bates, Alf
Davles, Denzll (Llaneill)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefleld)


Bean, R. E.
Davles, Ifor (Gower)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Deakins, Eric
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bennett, Or Reginald (Farenam)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hatton, Frank


Benyon, W.
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Havers, Sir Michael


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dempsey, James
Hayman, Mrs Helens


Biffen, John
Dodsworth, Geoflrey
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Biggs-Davlson, John
Doig, Peter
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bishop, E. S.
Dormand, J. D.
Hefler, Eric S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Henderson, Douglas


Boardman, H.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Heseltlne, Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hicks, Robert


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Hlggins, Terence L.


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Dunnett, Jack
Hooley, Frank


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Eadie, Alex
Horam, John


Bradley, Tom
Edge, Geoff
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Huckfleld, Les


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Elliott, Sir William
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Ellis, John (Brlgg &amp; Scun)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Buchanan, Richard
Ennals, David
Hunter, Adam


Buchanan-Smith, Allck
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Bulmer, Esmond
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jackson, Colin (Brlghouse)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton &amp; P)
Eyre, Reginald
Janner, Greville


Campbell, Ian
Farr, John
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Canavan, Dennis
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkin.Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Cant, R. B.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Carmlchael, Neil
Fitch, Alan (Wlgan)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Carson, John
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
John, Brynmor


Carter, Ray
Flannery, Martin
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Ford, Ben
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Forrester, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Clemitson, Ivor
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cohen, Stanley
Freeson, Reginald
Jopling, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Kaufman, Gerald


Conlan, Bernard
George, Bruce
Kelley, Richard

The House divided: Ayes 370, Noes 110.

Kilroy-Silk, Robert
O'Halloran, Michael
Speed, Keith


Kinnock, Neil
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Spriggs, Leslie


Lambie, David
Orbach, Maurice
Stallard, A. W.


Lamborn, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lamond, James
Ovenden, John
Stanley, John


Lamont, Norman
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Padley, Walter
Stewart, Donald (Western Islet)


Lawson, Nigel
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchln)


Leadbitter, Ted
Palmer, Arthur
Sloddart, David


Lo Marchant, Spencer
Park, George
Stott, Roger


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Parker, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Parry, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Lipton, Marcus
Pattie, Geoffrey
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Litterick, Tom
Pavitt, Laurie
Swain, Thomas


Loyden, Eddie
Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Luard, Evan
Percival, Ian
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Perry, Ernest
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mabon, Dr J Dlckson
Phipps, Dr Colin
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McCartney, Hugh
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


McElhone, Frank
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thompson, George


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Price, William (Rugby)
Thorne, Stan (Preston Soutti)


MacKenzie, Gregor
Prior, Rt Hon James
Tierney, Sydney


Mackintosh, John P.
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Tinn, James


Maclennan, Robert
Radlce, Giles
Tomiinson, John


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Raison, Timothy
Torney, Tom


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Townsend, Cyril D.


McNalr-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Urwin, T. W.


McNamara, Kevin
Reid, George
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Madden, Max
Remon, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Viggers, Peter


Magee, Bryan
Richardson, Miss Jo
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Mahon, Simon
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Watkins, David


Marquand, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Watkinson, John


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Watt, Hamish


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Weatherill, Bernard


Marten, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn
Weetch, Ken


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Weitzman, David


Mather, Carol
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wellbeloved, James


Maude, Angus
Rooker, J. W.
Welsh, Andrew


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Roper, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mawby, Ray
Rose, Paul B.
White, James (Pollok)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Whitehead, Phillip


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Whltelaw, Rt Hon William


Meacher, Michael
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Whitlock, William


Mendelson, John
Rowlands, Ted
Wigley, Dafydd


Mikardo, Ian
Royle, Sir Anthony
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ryman, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbfide)
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Miller, Mrs Millie (Illord N)
Seiby, Harry
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mills, Peter
Shaw, Arnold (Illord South)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Molyneaux, James
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Moonman, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morris, Charles R. (Opeflshaw)
Sllkln, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Woodall, Alec


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Silkln, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)
Woof, Robert


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Sillars, James
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Moyle, Roland
Silverman, Julius
Young, David (Bolton E)


Neave, Airey
Silvester, Fred



Neubert, Michael
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Newens, Stanley
Small, William
Mr. James Hamilton and


Noble, Mike
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Mr. Peter Snape.


Oakes, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel

[For Noes see c. 1467–8]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the matter of the complaint by the honourable Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

FIREARMS ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT)

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I beg to move.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Firearms Act 1968 with respect to the duration of firearm certificates and shotgun certificates.
I am seeking to introduce this Bill to get the Government out of a serious difficulty in which they find themselves. Lord Harris wrote to me on 15th October saying:
The Home Secretary has at present no power to do this under the 1968 Act".
If the Government will accept the Bill and facilitate its passage, they can meet the principal objection of most holders of firearm and shotgun certificates to the substantial increase in fees which they now face.
I remind the House that in 1969 a firearm and shotgun certificate cost 5s. It was raised to £2 10s. at the end of 1969. It was increased to £3 10s. in 1971, and in 1975 it was increased to £7. In October the Government laid an order increasing the fee for the granting of a firearm certificate to £12—an increase of 151 per cent, in the last four years—for the renewal of a firearm certificate from £4·50 to £10, and all other firearm and shotgun fees in proportion.
I am in no way asking for any form of subsidy. The fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has signed his name on the back of my Bill in support of it must convince the House that there is no question of the sporting community asking that their firearm and shotgun certificates should be subsidised in any way.
We accept the argument that the scheme should be self-financing. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is in her place. I think that the hon. Lady and the House are aware that the Long Room Committee, on which all users of shotguns and firearms are represented, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), has expressed grave doubts about the way that police costs are made up. We have seen references in Hansard to police

costs of over £50 for checking the renewal of one firearm certificate in the Greater London area. Many of the owners and users of firearms question the extent of the checking which seems to be necessary and the amount of police time which is now spent on it. Many perfectly honourable and honest citizens, when they come to renew their certificates for sound sporting reasons, find themselves subject to a whole host of questions and inquiries which they feel are a waste of police time.
It has been estimated that these new fees put a burden of over £1 million on the sporting community. I fear that the expenses now—£12 for a firearm certificate—will put a premium on having an unlicensed weapon in one's possession. I am sure the House does not want that.
If we double the fee, the only way to reduce the cost to the individual is to double the time for which the certificate is issued. That is what this simple Bill would do. It seeks to extend the period from three years to six years for the granting of these certificates. A driving licence is far more lethal than a shotgun certificate. For the total sum of £5, one has a licence to slaughter on the roads until one is senile or dies.
We are asking the Government to follow up the sympathy they have expressed about this problem by facilitating the passage of the Bill or by giving an undertaking that, when the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill comes before this House in the next Session, they will at least agree to extend the period for shotgun and firearm certificates.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Marcus Kimball, Mr. Jasper More, Mr. John Farr, Mr. Ben Ford, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Robert Boscawen, Mr. Michael Hamilton, Mr. Peter Rees and Mr. Nicholas Ridley.

FIREARMS ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Marcus Kimball accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Firearms Act 1968 with respect to the duration of firearm certificates and shot-gun certificates: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 256.]

Orders of the Day — RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL

[ALLOTTED DAY]

Lords amendments considered.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave you notice some time ago that I would seek to raise a point of order at this stage of the proceedings on the Bill relating to your selection, which was not placed or made available in the " No " Lobby until some time between a quarter to and a quarter past three this afternoon.
I put it to you that, so to speak, by the grace of God, we have had longer to consider your selection than would normally have been the case if other proceedings had not interrupted the com-

That the Lords Amendments to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill be considered by reference to the following order of Clauses and Schedules, namely, Clause 1, Schedule 2, Clauses 2 to 8, Schedule 3, Clauses 9 to 11, Schedule 4, Clauses 12 to 16, Schedule 5, Clauses 17 to 32, Schedule 6, Clauses 33 to 35, Schedule 7, Clauses 36 and 37, Schedule 1, new Schedules, Clauses 38 to 43, Schedules 8 and 9.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Mr. Francis Pym: The House is very well aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends are thoroughly dissatisfied with the manner in which the Bill has been handled in every conceivable way. In due course, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall wish to move a manuscript amendment to the motion. However, at the outset I wish to say that we are extremely unhappy about the way in which we are being treated on the Bill. We do not think that we have been given adequate notice or that proper parliamentary time intervals and procedures have in any way been adhered to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has just mentioned the difficulties over the list of amendments selected. However, you will notice yourself, Mr. Speaker, that all the Government amendments on the Amendment Paper are starred, indicating the fact, of which we are all aware, that until last night no one in the House knew that this business was to come before the House today.
We have felt all along that the guillotine originally proposed on Report and carried by the House was completely

mencement of the Bill this afternoon. If we had not had the prolonged debate on the privilege motion, which has put back the time of commencement of these proceedings, those of us who are interested in these amendments would have had only about half an hour to absorb your selection. With respect, that is not fair to Members of Parliament on both sides. There are no fewer than 137 different amendments in 49 groupings. It is not adequate for hon. Members to have only about half a hour to consider how these debates should take place.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has a legitimate complaint, and I apologise to him and to the House. I was in some difficulty. I do not want to go into it in too great detail. I appreciate that the notices should have been posted earlier. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the inconvenience he has suffered.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

unjustified. There had been no delay of any kind in Committee. The Opposition had been fulfilling their role with reasonableness and fair play, and there was proper progress. The thanks we got for that was the knife brought down by the Leader of the House. There was no parliamentary case whatever for a guillotine at that stage.

The Bill is inimical to agriculture. The only possible gain from the Bill is Socialism. That is something that we are against, and it is quite wrong to guillotine that. Under that guillotine there was no discussion whatsoever of Clause 30. The manuscript amendment relates to advancing Clause 30 to an earlier stage in the Bill. Since the guillotine on Report we have seen another guillotine introduced in a way that can only be described as thoroughly hostile to another place, because the knives were brought down before another place could even conclude its consideration of the amendments, so that we had no idea what decisions their Lordships would come to. Only last night did we hear that their amendments would be taken today.

When my hon. Friends sought to obtain details of the Government's


reaction to their Lordships' amendments, they were unable to find that out until five minutes to one o'clock this morning. The list of amendments that their Lordships passed comprised nearly 100 Government amendments and 32 other amendments—more than three times as many Government amendments. When one hears something of the things said by the Government Front Bench about the way their Lordships have handled the Bill, it is right to draw to the attention of this House the fact that in Committee in another place there were 40 Government amendments and only 18 Opposition amendments, and that on Report in another place there were no fewer than 60 further Government amendments and only 21 Opposition amendments.

In the event, however, there are five really significant and important changes that another place has introduced into the Bill. The first is an amendment to Clause 1 relating to the definition of agriculture and, in particular, livestock. The second is on the forestry side. The third concerns the responsibility of local authorities to rehouse those who previously lived in tied cottages; that is what is known as the "best endeavours" clause. The fourth concerns the qualifying period; that is, the length of time a worker must have been involved in agriculture and in a particular farm before he can qualify for the privileges afforded to certain persons under the Bill. The fifth concerns the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of a man for misconduct.

What was the Government's attitude to their Lordships' decisions? We did not know yesterday. We did not know until today. All the amendments that the Government have tabled for us to consider this afternoon are starred. I think that that is a parliamentary disgrace. It bears no relation to any kind of reasonable procedure that anyone has ever known. In view of the fact that we treated the Bill, although we were against it, in the way in which we did, it absolutely offends us that we should receive the treatment that we are receiving.

6.15 p.m.

I do not believe that the Leader of the House is remotely interested in what we understand as parliamentary government. He wants simply to railroad Socialism through this machine. In view of all the

things he used to say when he sat below the Gangway, it is a fantastic disgrace that he has the presumption to bring this matter before the House today. I am sorry that he is not in his place. He ought to be in his place. We know that he has had another problem to deal with today, but to try to treat the House in this way is a complete disgrace.

For example, the Government have an amendment of their own to Lords Amendment No. 86. The Government amendment appears to be helpful, but, as it was only in the small hours of this morning that we had notice of it, how in all fairness can we take the legal and proper advice from people who are skilled, informed and expert in these matters in order to know whether it is really helpful? That is one obvious example. Another example, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) feels particularly strongly, is a Government amendment to Lords Amendment No. 77, which appears on the last page of the Amendment Paper. It is a very technical amendment. It deals with a point concerning the Rent Acts not entirely directed to agriculture, apparently. My hon. Friend would have liked much more than a few hours to study the significance of the amendment.

That brings us to Clause 30, the " best endeavours " clause. This was never reached on Report because of the knives. It will not be reached today if the motion is carried. It was not reached on Report and it will not be reached now. I thought that the House of Commons was all about airing grievances. What we are now involved in is an exercise which can be described as a hush-up, and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I resent it.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment to the motion, in line 2, after 'Schedule 2', insert 'Clause 30'.

There are two other manuscript amendments which are consequential. They are: in line 3, at the end, insert ' to 29 ': in line 4, at the beginning, delete first' to ' and insert 'Clauses 31 and'.

The net effect of the amendment to the motion would be that after considering Clause 1 and Schedule 2 we would then consider Clause 30, which is not the only really important clause in the Bill but is certainly one of the important


clauses. It would be quite wrong if we went through this business today without giving time to consider that clause. Therefore, we move those amendments not because we think that they make a slight adjustment to something of which we approve but as an absolute protest at the way in which we have been treated.

Mr. Speaker: I have not given permission yet, but I am about to do so. I am about to accept the manuscript amendment. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) will understand that I accept the manuscript amendment, in line 2, after ' Schedule 2 ', insert ' Clause 30', with which we may discuss the other manuscript amendments, but he will appreciate that at this stage he moves only one amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has taken the opportunity of this discussion on a procedural matter to attack the Bill as a Socialist measure. We plead guilty to that charge. This is a Bill that will bring social justice to the agricultural community. It will give farm workers and their families a security of tenure and a protection against eviction which is long overdue. Therefore, we are in no doubt that this is a very basic and radical reform, and one of which the present Government are proud.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to attack my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I rebut—[HON. MEMBER: "Where is he? "] My right hon. Friend has had a great many demands put on his time, coming very shortly after an illness and caused to a large extent by the confrontation that has taken place between the Conservative-dominated second Chamber and the House of Commons. That is what today's proceedings are all about.

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. Pym: It is about the mishandling of legislative business by the Leader of the House. That is what it is about.

Mr. Strang: I shall come to that point very soon. I do not want to take up valuable time. We have a full six hours

on this measure, and I for one should like to see the time used constructively. Hon. Members must be aware that hours and hours have been spent in debating this measure in Committee and in the other place, and now, as a result of their Lordships' amendments, we are to spend another six hours. I acknowledge that it is an important measure, but it has been debated at great length.
I come now to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. I think he can reasonably argue that he and his hon. Friends have been subjected to an element of inconvenience as a result of the Government deciding to bring forward these proceedings by one day. That is the complaint, as I understand it—that the right hon. Gentleman expected this debate to take place tomorrow but it is taking place today. I am glad that he acknowledges that.
Let me make our position clear. We recognise that there is an element of genuine inconvenience here, but I think that all hon. Members have been aware that we are not in a position to predict precisely what will be the business in the Commons at present—[An HON. MEMBER: " For how long? "] I think that that is a fair question. For how long depends, among other things, on the attitude of the leadership of the Conservative Opposition and the other place. For how long shall we carry on this Session? I do not know the answer to that.

Mr. Pym: That is a monstrous thing to say. The Government sent a whole host of major Bills to another place very late in the Session, creating a log-jam the like of which has never been known before, and to say that the responsibility for that lies with another place is quite wrong. It is the responsibility of the Leader of the House and the Government's business managers for arranging their legislative programme in this way. The Treasury Bench must take its responsibility.

Mr. Strang: I shall proceed to demonstrate, when we come to debate it, that the first amendment is a wrecking amendment. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. That is what this is about. It is about an attempt by their Lordships to frustrate the Government's intentions here. They have sought to wreck this measure, and the Government, quite


rightly, are using their majority and the votes which they can command in the House of Commons to redress the damage. That is what this is about.
I come now to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, because we genuinely want to have a debate. There is no question of that. The Government want to use the six hours to debate the issues of substance and importance—debating them, I may add, in some cases for the third and fourth time, since that is what it will amount to. These points which have been raised by the other place are not new great points of substance. They are wrecking amendments in some cases, and in some instances they are straight decisions going against decisions reached in the Standing Committee.
I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman—this is genuinely meant to be helpful to him—that we are not prepared to accept his manuscript amendment but we are prepared to facilitate his objectives. We are anxious to move on, and I noted his particular reference to Clause 30. We are anxious to conduct our affairs in a way that will enable us to move on quickly and avoid any undue delay on some of the matters arising earlier, certain of which, I agree, are important.
Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to respond to our offer and accept that we proceed in the order which we propose, on the understanding that we shall seek to facilitate a debate on the particular matter on which he wishes to spend some time.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: Would the Parliamentary Secretary be so kind as to give his views on Lords Amendment No. 77, which introduces New Schedule 1A? Does he not agree that this constitutes a fundamental redrafting of Clause 2? Does he not recognise that it comprises some 75 lines of vital redefinition of sections of the Rent Act 1968? Does he acknowledge that this first became available to the House at noon yesterday, and does he think that this is a satisfactory way of legislating?

Mr. Charles Morrison: The Parliamentary Secretary cannot be allowed to get away with what he said. In effect, he was complaining about the existence of the other place. He should

recall that the other place exists in its present form because of the opposition to reform which came from the present Leader of the House. Therefore, to complain now about the other place carries no weight whatever. If the hon. Gentleman had read the newspapers and used his ears in recent weeks, he would have realised that many of their Lordships think that it is high time that reform took place. If it has not, the only reason is that the present Government are concerned with irrelevant and unimportant matters. Moreover, the Parliamentary Secretary cannot use the illness of the Leader of the House as an excuse for the right hon. Gentleman not being here now to deal with complaints against his performance today.
The short notice given to the House of the debate on this measure is a disgrace. Once again, two things are poved: first, the incompetence of the Leader of the House in the way he organises his business, and, second, the fact that the Leader of the House believes that the Commons, let alone the other place, should be used as a rubber stamp to push Government legislation through without argument and as quickly as possible.
The only happy thought left with us about the way the Government have dealt with business today is the knowledge that in the not too distant future the Leader of the House will once again be in Opposition. We shall then recall his performance as Leader of the House, and we shall realise that the great flights of oratory in which he will then indulge will be no more than a mass of meaningless rhetoric, without integrity and implying no more than a desire on the right hon. Gentleman's part to impress us with his words.
What has happened today is a disgrace, and I hope that the country, and the farming industry in particular, will take note of it.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I felt angry enough before the Minister replied, and I feel more angry now. If he really wanted to meet our grievances —I assure him that they are sincere and honest—he could have done so easily by accepting our amendment to the procedure motion. We could then have debated Clause 30, which both Ministers


know touches matters of profound importance on which we must have a discussion. I have never been one to raise points of order in the House, and I hope that I am regarded as a fair and modest man, but I am extremely angry at the way the House has been treated. The Government's behaviour is thoroughly shabby.
The Minister referred to the debates in Committee. We tried to be constructive throughout. I certainly did, and sometimes I agreed with the Government. We had excellent relations in the Standing Committee. There was no filibustering of any kind, and there was no guillotine. But when we reached Report in this House there was no meaningful discussion whatever and no opportunity to discuss the many amendments still to be dealt with.
Those of us who took an interest in the Bill in Committee and who spent quite a lot of time trying to study these matters were hoping to play a useful part in the debate now to follow. But we must have proper warning in order to prepare our speeches on these complicated amendments, and we have had no warning of any kind. How is it possible to make a sensible contribution if the Government announce their business in this way at the last minute? It is no wonder that people outside Parliament are utterly disillusioned with the way we handle our affairs. It is a mockery. If the Minister genuinely wanted to help us, he could have accepted our amendment. I regard his rejection of it as outrageous, and I wish to record my disgust and protest at the way we have been treated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): May I ask the House to recall that this is a very narrow debate about the point at which we should consider Clause 30?

Mr. John Ellis: I rejoice that on this occasion I have an opportunity to speak, because I was not able to do so at an earlier stage. I put it to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that, as I see it, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) put a very fair point. Sweeping all the verbiage away from it, he said that there were four or five main issues which he wished to debate. That is fair enough, but there is

no point in the right hon. Member complaining of injustice or waxing eloquent, because most of these things have been discussed before.
If all that the amendment seeks is to have a debate on one of these five matters before the others I hope that will be possible. I do not think my hon. Friends would have any objection. There can be no objection, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the matter in that light.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Strang: We are all glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) is in a position to participate in these proceedings. I am sure that even Opposition Members would want to pay tribute to the contribution that my hon. Friend made in Standing Committee as a Government Whip. Like him, I regret the rather provocative manner in which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) introduced his remarks.
We want to make progress. It is not our purpose to frustrate the debate on these issues. I tried to emphasise that at the outset. As a gesture of our genuine attempt to have a constructive use of these further six hours on the Floor of the House, we are prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I am grateful to the Minister for at last acceding to my right hon. Friend's request. It is a pity he did not do so earlier. There is one point that I should like to take up with him—that is, his remark that the House has suffered inconvenience because the Bill was brought on much earlier than hon. Members anticipated.
It goes far beyond inconvenience. It is a profound discourtesy and contempt of the House and of hon. Members in this House. I shall give as an example how I was placed in respect of this matter. During the latter part of yesterday evening I happened to be in my constituency. I returned home at about 11.30 last night to find a massage from my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) telling me that the Bill was coming on today. Since we were both concerned with handling the Bill for the Opposition in Committee, we were very much concerned about this.
I repaired at once to the House and arrived here at about a quarter to midnight to discuss with my hon. Friend what these amendments were. May I say in passing that I did not receive the customary courtesy either from the Minister or from any member of his Department advising me that the Bill was coming forward earlier than had been intended. Nor was any communication delivered about what would be the Government's attitude to the Lords amendments. That is normally a courtesy which is extended between the two Front Benches, but no message was received by me or left anywhere for me.
The consequence was that I came to the House, and through the kind offices of the Public Bill Office I was able to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment deals with Clause 30. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is straying well beyond that.

Mr. Rossi: I shall come to that matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall also make another application to you about the nature of the starred amendments. If I may develop my argument, you will see that at the end I shall make a request to you, with your leave.
Through the courtesy of the Public Bill Office, I was given a list of the proposed amendments and the provisional scheduling of them. There were 129 amendments. As hon. Members know, if one is to do this matter properly one has to compare the Lords amendments with the text of the Bill to see how relevant they are. One must then refer back to the Lords Hansard to see exactly what the debate was and what the amendments are all about in order that we may form a judgment on whether to agree or disagree with the Lords amendments.
On the basis of only 10 minutes for each amendment, that is 21 hours' work. That is the burden which was imposed upon us last night. It is absolutely impossible—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Be that as it may, I want to hear the argument why Clause 30 should not appear in the order in which it is set out on the Order Paper. The Minister has accepted the amendment.

Mr. Rossi: I am dealing with this matter and also the submission that I

wish to make to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I may debate the jurisdiction with regard to starred amendments——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us deal with one matter at a time. That is much simpler and clearer to the House. I should like to hear any argument why Clause 30 should not be placed in the position in which it would be if the amendment were carried.

Mr. Rossi: I shall enlarge upon the amount of time to consider these matters and you will notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Clause 30 is dealt with by Lords Amendments Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49. These are two-thirds down the page. Would you like to make a calculation of 10 minutes per amendment in considering what is listed on the Amendment Paper before we reach the amendments to Clause 30? That is the point I have been putting to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you heard what I was saying.
This is relevant to the order in which we take these matters and the amount of time that the Government have allowed to consider them. On the whole, we have not been given the time to consider these matters as we should. My right hon. and hon. Friends behind me did not sec what these amendments were until 2.55 this afternoon, when the list was put in the Lobby. That is not the way in which the House should be treated or the way in which hon. Members should be asked to consider important and serious matters. It is a contempt of the whole parliamentary system.
I appreciate that what I am saying puts the Chair in an extremely difficult position. But these are starred amendments. It is within the discretion of the Chair to decide whether or not they should be selected for debate. That is the normal procedure of the House. It is within your discretion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consider whether any starred amendments should be selected for debate. The list before us is a provisional selection by Mr. Speaker, and there is nothing binding upon you.
Therefore, in order to protect the House and hon. Members who have not had an opportunity to consider these matters, and on the pure arithmetic with respect to the minutes and hours involved


in considering these matters properly, I invite you, without prejudice to my right hon. Friend's amendment, to say that you do not select any of the starred amendments. It is the function of the Chair to protect the House and hon. Members so that they can do their work properly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I have no power to vary the provisional list of selection made by Mr. Speaker. Therefore, the second point that the hon. Gentleman has raised does not arise. The first point is whether Clause 30 has to be placed in the position in which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has suggested. Unless anyone has any objection, I will put that point to the House now.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That being so, would not the right course be to recall Mr. Speaker so that he may hear this argument about whether the starred amendments should be selected? I am sure you will recognise that it is the whole truth that those of us who expected to be able to have a discussion as a group today about the debate tomorrow have come here with no chance of being able to read or to appreciate the amendments. It was after 3 o'clock today that this matter was first drawn to our attention.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has made a proper protest and we understand the difficulties in which the House has been placed in recent days. I was surprised that he made an attack on a Minister—whether my colleague or myself I do not know. The timing of a debate is not usually a matter for discussion between the Minister and the Shadow Minister. This was discussed through the usual channels. I apologise. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's frustration and the inconvenience he has suffered. It was very proper to make the protest that he did. However, we have taken about 40 minutes of the six hours allotted to an important Bill. I therefore suggest that we now proceed, since we have accepted the reasonable amendment of the right hon.
Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) in view of the strong feelings about Clause 30.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As we have been dealing with other points of order, perhaps I might say that I am confident that Mr. Speaker is well aware that the amendments were starred. The selection is his. I shall therefore now proceed to put the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: In line 3, at end insert ' to 29,'.

In line 4, delete first ' to' and insert ' Clauses 31 and —[Mr. Pym.]

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Lords Amendments to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill be considered by reference to the following order of Clauses and Schedules, namely, Clause 1, Schedule 2, Clause 30, Clauses 2 to 8, Schedule 3, Clauses 9 to 11, Schedule 4, Clauses 12 to 16, Schedule 5, Clauses 17 to 29, Clauses 31 and 32, Schedule 6, Clauses 33 to 35, Schedule 7, Clauses 36 and 37, Schedule 1, new Schedules, Clauses 38 to 43, Schedules 8 and 9.

Clause 1

INTERPRETATION AND COMMENCEMENT

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (i).

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Strang: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that we are to take at the same time Lords Amendments No. 2 and 5.

Mr. Strang: This first group takes us straight to the heart of the matter. The scope of the definition of "agriculture" has already been debated at length. Lords Amendment No. 1 is important because it reveals the attitude of a majority of the Members of another place to this Bill: it is a wrecking amendment.
The National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers has campaigned for many years for the abolition of the agricultural tied cottage. In the course of my interest in these issues, which goes back a number of years, I have discussed them with farm workers throughout the


country. Some of them have been remarkably conscious that the Bill would have to be passed not only by this House but by the other place. They were aware, and more of them than ever are now aware, of the anachronistic composition of the second Chamber, which gives landed gentry the power to dominate its decisions. An overwhelming majority of the peers who voted for this wrecking amendment are hereditary peers—perhaps not surprisingly, since they number over 800, as opposed to 295 life peers.

Mr. Mayhew: Would the Minister say what proportion of the Labour peers entitled to attend actually did so?

Mr. Strang: We could have a great debate about the various proportions of different parties who voted on this amend ment, but I am making one central point of which farm workers have been very conscious—that there is a particular interest in this measure in the other place precisely because it is a basic advance and reform in the countryside—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Talk about farming.

Mr. Strang: I intend to do just that—

Mr. Peter Mills: What rubbish—a basic reform!

Mr. Strang: It has been said that to extend security of tenure to workers in sectors of agriculture involving livestock, and particularly to dairy stockmen, would damage the industry. The Government have argued that that is without foundation. There is no justification for speculating that the rehousing obligation in the Bill will not work and that livestock farmers will not be able to regain possession of their cottages if they need them for essential incoming workers. Nor have hon. Members or noble Lords been able to bring forward any convincing evidence to support that view. It is merely alarmism and has done nothing to further constructive debate on the Bill. By agreeing to these amendments the Lords have deliberately sought to deny the Bill's protection to the largest single group who should be eligible for it.
This means that they would have no protection. It is still not widely appreciated in the country at large, or perhaps by hon. Members—it is certainly not

appreciated by urban electors—that the farm worker and his family have no security whatever in their agricultural tied cottage; that if a farmer or a landlord takes a worker to court to get him out of the cottage, as the law stands the court has no alternative but to grant possession to the farmer. All that it can do is delay the process for a short time. It does not matter whether the farmer wants to leave the cottage standing empty, to sell it or to use it as a second home. That is irrelevant. If the amendment stands, this important section of the agricultural labour force will continue to have no legal protection in the occupation of their dwelling-houses.
A high proportion—about 76 per cent.—of stockmen are housed by their employers and their houses account for about a quarter of the total cottage stock occupied by whole-time workers. This is not a small peripheral group: these people are right at the centre. It is obvious that the Government had the particular and often pressing need for their rehousing very much in mind when tailoring the Bill.
My noble Friend Lord Peart said in another place that the amendments drove a coach and horses through the Bill. So they do, and so they were intended to. I do not see how anyone can refer to amendments which seek to remove such large numbers of people from the Bill as revision. They are wrecking amendments. If the Bill is left as the Lords suggests it will fail utterly to meet our objective.
Let me briefly rehearse some of the arguments yet again. The Government fully recognise and always have recognised that there are occasions when it is necessary to house the workers on or close to the farm. That is why there are provisions in the Bill for farmers to make applications to rehouse outgoing workers in a way that enables local housing authorities to take into account not only the agricultural need but the urgency of any particular case. We are presently discussing with both sides of industry how best to guide housing authorities and the advisory committees on the weight to be attached to the various elements of agricultural need. The industry is wholly behind us in this exercise and I am confident that sensible and workable criteria will be evolved.
As my noble Friend the Undersecretary of State for Scotland said on Second Reading in another place, I would expect that those sectors where the welfare of animals is directly involved would merit high priority ratings on grounds of agricultural need and urgency in the advice which local authorities will be receiving from agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees.
The amendment to exclude the use of land for grazing, meadow or pasture land would exclude both work on land used for the grazing and free running of livestock and land producing grass for subsequent drying or ensiling. It is not acceptable, for the same reasons and considerations as apply to the proposed exclusion of dairy farming and livestock keeping and breeding.
I have been at pains to express why I believe that it is right and proper for the Government to ask the House to reverse these amendments which strike at the heart of this basic reform. The reform has been campaigned for for many years by farm workers and their families. It is a reform for which the Government received a mandate at the last election. The Bill received a decisive Second Reading in this place. The only people who opposed the measure on Second Reading were either members of the Conservative Party or Ulster Unionists. The measure had a majority of 40 on Second Reading.

Mr. David James: As we are both Scots, will the Minister tell me why our Scottish colleagues do not want to see anything of this?

Mr. Strang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I hope, if I answer it once, that will dispose of it for the rest of the evening. The Government gave a commitment at the last election to farm workers and their families not just in England and Wales but in Scotland as well. When the measure is implemented it will give security to farm workers and their families in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland and his junior Minister have made clear that the Government accept this commitment to Scotland. It is usual for legislation affecting housing in Scotland to be included in a separate Bill. It is right and proper that decisions

on the precise nature of the Scottish legislation and its timing should be a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Labour Party does not intend to renege on the promise given by the Government to farm workers and their families in Scotland.

Mr. David James: With respect—

Mr. Strong: I cannot give way again. I have given way once.

Mr. James: Mr. Jamesrose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. If the Minister does not wish to give way, he will not give way.

Mr. Strang: I have tried to explain that this is a vital matter which has been voted for decisively by the House of Commons. It is right that the House should reject the amendment, which is a wrecking amendment.

Mr. Pym: I should first like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for agreeing to the adjustment of the placing of Clause 30. I very much appreciate it. At the outset, I declare an interest which, perhaps in the spirit of what the Parliamentary Secretary said, might also be taken as an omnibus declaration.
The purpose of the amendment is to confine the effect of the Bill more narrowly and to exclude from it one sector of agriculture. Admittedly, that sector is as closely concerned with housing as is any other sector. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is not a wrecking amendment, as the Minister described it.
At the outset of his remarks the Minister showed incredible prejudice against another place. He talked about debates not being constructive, but has he read the debates in another place? If he does not consider them to be constructive, helpful and knowledgeable debates about agriculture, I do not know what he considers to be constructive debates. I do not think that he has gone into the matter. It is wrong for him to explain the position as he did. He was completely inaccurate, and indicated painfully clearly that he is motivated by sheer prejudice.
The purpose of the amendment is to leave out one sector of farming. I think I heard the Minister say that the sector


of agriculture affected by the amendment would cover about one-quarter of those engaged in farming. It is not a wrecking amendment, because the other three-quarters would remain.
Whether or not we agree with the intention of the Bill, the Opposition understand at least one of the Government's motivations—that is, to try to deal with evictions that arise occasionally from time to time, and the consequential hardships. My hon. Friends have given no ground in their desire to avoid those hardships. We all want to avoid them, but not by creating a whole range of other hardships. The case that we have been making, and the case made by my noble Friends in another place, is that by doing it in this way other hardships will be created. The Bill singles out agriculture for treatment in this way, leaving 90 per cent, of tied accommodation untouched. It is not the principle of a tied house that the Government are going for here; it is just the agricultural element.
It is fair for the Government to say that some farm workers want the Bill and always have wanted it. But many do not want it—perhaps most of them do not want it. The Bill will put them all in an extremely privileged position. They will enjoy more privileges than will workers in a great many other industries. We question the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary, in his enthusiasm, has sought to bring this about.
Those in the agricultural world are very interested in the Bill. That is natural. Because of the nature of the work they do, all farmers are worried that their houses may not continue to be occupied by men who work on the farm. Under the Bill there is no certainty when the fanner will get repossession of a house to enable him to offer it to another man who will work on the farm. That is a particularly acute matter for livestock farmers. That is the point of the amendment.
Livestock farmers have to look after their animals all round the clock. Poultry hen batteries, pig units and dairy herds all have to be looked after all round the clock, and the stockmen have to live on the job or very close to it. Stockmen understand their responsibilities and know that they have to live near the job. It is in their interests to do so, and they

do it gladly. Stockmen do an extremely good job for the industry.
When there is a change of stockman on the farm, there may be real difficulties. It is all right for a few days, or a few weeks. The farmer can look after the stock himself, if necessary all round the clock. If there is any long-term delay, however, complications may arise, which the Parliamentary Secretary has completely failed to recognise. Some farmers who get into these difficulties will say that the game is not worth the candle and that they cannot go on with it.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary brushes all this aside as though we do not know, do not care and do not understand what the Bill says. He takes the attitude that he knows best. My right hon. and hon. Friends do not think that he does know best and we think that he has not thought through the Bill's implications. No one knows how it will work in practice. No one knows how the local authorities will respond to these so-called "best endeavours".
Therefore, we support their Lordships in proposing a more modest beginning for the Bill. If the Government are so passionate about putting through the Bill they will have their way, but we say that they should recognise that there are difficulties and uncertainties in it and that these exist in the most acute form for the livestock farmer.
Let the Government implement the Bill on a more modest basis, initially, exclude the livestock farms, and see how it works. If it proves to be anywhere near as successful as the Parliamentary Secretary expects—though we do not—he can bring forward amendments in a few months' time to include the livestock sector.
Surely common sense, experience and reason should lead the Government to accept the amendment and to try out the Bill on a more modest basis at first. I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.

7.0 p.m.

Miss Joan Maynard (Sheffield, Bright-side): A lot of words such as " prejudice " and " privilege" are being flung about the House. I admit my prejudice on the side of farm workers, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will admit the prejudice of another place which is so apparent to everyone.
Let us examine the antecedents of another place, how many of its Members went to Eton and other public schools and how many are landowners, so that we may see how representative and unprejudiced they are.
We have been told that the Bill will make farm workers a privileged group. If so, that would be a pleasant change. They are important workers and they have always been a very under-privileged group. Do farm workers want the Bill? I have been a member of the farm workers' union for nearly 30 years and I have never attended a union meeting where there has been a call for the retention of the tied cottage system.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: What about Scotland?

Miss Maynard: The position in Scotland was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
We are told that another place is a revising Chamber, but the amendment not only wrecks the Bill but rips it apart. It comes from people who have never lacked security themselves but who are determined to deny it to farm workers.
We are told that the inclusion of this group in the Bill would have a damaging effect on the industry. I have been connected with the industry all my life, and I suggest to Opposition hon. Members that the archaic, feudal, out-of-date tied cottage system does the most damage to the industry and means that it has an ageing labour force. The Opposition ought to be as concerned about that as is everyone else who cares about agriculture.
The real reason behind the wish to exclude these workers is that they are the most difficult to attract into the industry because theirs is a seven-days-a-week job, with long hours and a tremendous responsibility for pedigree herds.
The argument about evictions has been used again and I repeat what has been said many times before. Evictions are merely the tip of the iceberg. It does not matter whether a farmer evicts a man, his wife and family. What matters is that the power to do it is there.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that he wants to avoid hardship. If that is so, he should

support the Bill. To argue that it is essential for stockmen and dairy men to live on the farm is to ignore completely the fact that there are such things as cars and telephones which make it easy for a stockman to reach the farm quickly. We do not live in the era of carrier pigeons; we are living in the twentieth century.
Let us examine the argument that the industry will be wrecked by the Bill. We were told that the industry would be wrecked when farm workers were given Saturday afternoons off and again when the Agricultural Wages Board was established. Yet the Opposition are now great supporters of the Board.
Whenever there has been any reform in our society, whether in agriculture or anywhere else, employers have always argued that industries would be wrecked. The real wreckers are those in another place who would have us support this amendment. I know that this House will throw it out.

Sir Timothy Kitson: The hon. Lady is a member of the farm workers' union in the North Riding. She has spoken about cars and telephones but has not mentioned a word about the welfare of stock. The union does not have many members in Wensley-dale and Swaledale, where it does not matter whether a worker has a car or a telephone; the real problem is how to get a worker to the farm in the winter. Will the hon. Lady say something about the welfare of animals?

Miss Maynard: The hon. Gentleman says that I know only about Yorkshire farm workers and speak for them. I remind him that I was national vice-president of the union for six years and have held national responsibilities, travelled extensively and met farm workers from all over the country.
The welfare of stock is obviously important, but it is not more important than the welfare of human beings. I sometimes wonder whether that view is shared by everybody. I remember sitting in a county court during the eviction case of a couple when the farmer said that he must have their house—though it then stood empty for two and a half years after the eviction. The judge in that case said that, although it seemed a hard thing for him to say, land was more important than people. He was making


the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson) that animals and land are more important than people. I believe that people are more important.
Wensleydale is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, so he should know about it. I have had many connections with it and it is one of my favourite beauty areas. Nearly every farm there is a family concern, and that is why there are not many members of the union in that area. Consequently, the point raised by the hon. Gentleman in his intervention does not arise.

Mr. Farr: I support Lords Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5, which are the crux of the Bill. It is sad that, however cogently arguments are put in this debate, the issue will be decided by the vast majority of hon. Members who have not heard any of the speeches.
It is difficult when one intervenes at this late stage in the passage of the Bill to put any new angles. Even if there were new angles which might interest the House, putting them would have no effect because of the weight of votes which will be going into the Government Lobby. I wish to raise a couple of points put to me not by the NFU but by a stock farmer and a dairy farmer in the Midlands. They have explained how difficult life will be for them if the amendments are rejected.
A farmer and his brother who farm on a small scale have told me that, with the aid of a building society Ioan and a county council grant, they have built farm cottages for their employees. If the amendment is rejected, farmers will not bother to do that any more. Although the number involved might not be large, farmers would be made to build cottages for their workers if the Bill were enacted in its present form.
The other new point relates to the difficulty of possession. If the Bill is enacted as it stands and a farmer finds difficulty in gaining possession of his stockman's house because the local authority cannot provide alternative accommodation, if his employee is incapable of looking after his stock any longer the farmer will think twice before employing again a stockman who does not have accommodation of his own. Some stockmen can travel to a farm every

day from a council house by motor cycle or by car and a farmer will therefore be reluctant to take on a stockman who is dependent on a stockman's house, because of the difficulty of regaining possession. A farmer might be loth, having gone through the difficult process of gaining possession, to let it again, particularly if he can employ a stockman who already has a council house. He would regard that as better than again employing a man who could be a positive disruptive influence on a farming enterprise living in the stockman's cottage but not working on the farm.

Mr. Thomas Swain: Is it not the custom that when an hon. Member addresses the House he should declare his interest in the subject on which he is about to speak? The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is a gentleman farmer, but he has not so far declared his interests, which, I am told, are vast.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member raising a point of order, or is he making an intervention?

Mr. Swain: I have been a Member of the House for 17 years—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order with the Chair?

Mr. Swain: It is an intervention-cum-point of order. I have been here for 17 years—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member appears to be making a hybrid point of order.

Mr. Swain: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member should take his hands out of his pockets.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Swain: I am keeping my hands in my pockets to stop the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) from stealing my money. Is it not a custom, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Members should declare an interest when discussing an issue in which they are concerned? Can the hon. Member for Harborough give specific numbers of the houses built in the past 25 years?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now have the sense of the hon. Member's point of order. There is some doubt, as I discovered yesterday, about whether an hon. Member, having declared an interest in the Register of Members' Interests, should still declare his interest during debate. My ruling then was that he must still declare it, but I shall leave it to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) to decide whether he wants to declare his interest in farming.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My interest in this subject is declared in the register, but I shall be guided by your ruling. I understood that once an hon. Member had declared his interest during the passage of a Bill in the House, that was sufficient. I declared my interest both on Second Reading and on Report. It is a waste of time to declare it again, especially as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) was not there at the time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) referred to the strange attitude of the Government in selecting agricultural tied cottages. That selection has puzzled us, but we have not had a satisfactory answer. Of a national pool of 165,000 tied cottages, only 65,000 are occupied by agricultural workers. The remaining 100,000 are owned by the National Coal Board, the British Waterways Board, the British Steel Corporation and the British Railways Board. It is strange that the Government should single out agricultural landlords. It must be some form of spiteful victimisation, because it can have nothing to do with the record of agricultural landlords. Their record bears comparison to that of all the others.
It is important for us to accept Lords Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5. The Government have been big-headed and have defied the advice of the NFU, the Milk Marketing Board, the British Pig Producers Association, the Country Landowners Association and—if they ever read it—the excellent independent report produced by Miss Gasson of Cambridge University. The advice given by those bodies reflected the attitude of those who know what the situation is. But their advice has been denied by the Government. They have been steered towards

their target of abolishing agricultural tied cottages by the extreme left wing of their party on whom they depend for remaining in Government.
Only 2 per cent. of dairy farms in Britain have council houses within walking or cycling distance. The remainder depend on stockmen who live in a tied cottage or on the farmer doing the work himself. Unless the amendments are accepted, grave difficulties will result.

Mr. John Watkinson: I have no interest to declare, except in so far as I represent an agricultural area.
The Opposition have taken exception to the Parliamentary Secretary's description of the amendments as wrecking amendments, but it must be conceded by any reasonable person that if the other place removes from the ambit of the Bill 50 per cent, of the people whom we intended to be covered when we passed it, it must at least emasculate the Bill. It removes an enormous percentage of those whom we have set out to cover—an enormous number of agricultural workers whom, as a matter of principle, we sought to protect.

Mr. Pym: The Parliamentary Secretary said that the figure was a quarter, which is rather different from a half.

Mr. Watkinson: I accept that correction. I misheard my hon. Friend. But the right hon. Gentleman must agree that it is a significant proportion.
Representing an agricultural constituency, I meet my farmers reasonably regularly. I believe that the views expressed by Conservative Members have been hysterical and—to repeat the term used by my hon. Friend—alarmist. I have discussed the issue with farmers in my area. I have not found that the problem is uppermost in their minds. That is not to say that they are not concerned about it, or that I do not understand their concern, but they are far more concerned about problems relating to the drought and the green pound.
When we have discussed the issue I have acknowledged that there are problems, but I have tried to put to them, as my party has tried to put to the nation, that the principle at stake is whether it is desirable that farm workers


should have their working conditions so inextricably tied up with their living conditions. The farmers to whom I have spoken have felt unhappy about this, but have pointed to the practical difficulties raised by hon. Members. However, Conservative Members must accept that a principle is involved and that sooner or later we must stand up and be counted on that principle. That is what we are doing with the Bill.
A stockman in my constituency came to my surgery and said " I've come to talk to you about the tied cottages Bill. I am not in favour of it. I earn a very good wage. I have free accommodation and a good boss, and I am happy." But then I asked him the question that has been put so often by my hon. Friend: "What happens to you, a hale and hearty worker now, if you fall ill? If you die, what happens to your family?" There was a long pause, as there inevitably is when such a question is put, and no answer could be given. We are trying to deal with that problem, trying to provide a basic security to such men and their families. That is the essence of the Bill.
At the same time, we are trying to remove from farm workers who face the problem of eviction the stigma associated with going to court. I speak as a lawyer. I do not know how many Conservative Members present have been before a court, or know what it is like to do so. Even if it is merely a matter of pleading guilty or facing a fait accompli, when the individual may have to do no more than to appear before a judge, there is a stigma.
It cannot be something of which any of us is proud that a significant number of people must appear before a court to obtain housing. We are attempting to remove an objectionable stigma which attaches to those unfortunate enough to be asked to leave their cottage. That is an honourable intention, which I would have hoped Conservative Members would welcome.
Hon. Members have pointed out the difficulties associated with the stockman and herdsman. I accept that there are difficulties, but let us face the brute fact that even under the present arrangements the farmer cannot get his stockman out of the cottage for a period of six months after he has first taken action.

The farmers are somehow coping with that. Conservative Members have not been honest about the matter. As farmers, they know that that happens and that colleagues of theirs who are farmers have survived the problem.
The Labour Party is committed to an honourable principle. I accept that in the farming community, including that in my own constituency, there are doubts and fears about the matter, but we have nailed our colours to the mast and said that it is not right that people's work should be so inextricably tied up with their housing. That is an honourable cause, and for that reason I support the Bill.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is always a great pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson). He presented his case with sweet reasonableness, and there is no doubt that he could be, and perhaps is, a very successful lawyer. But what is important is not necessarily what the lawyers say. What they leave unsaid is even more important. I am concerned about the Government's proposals, and fully support the amendments made by another place. I congratulate it on its careful, positive and constructive consideration of this very important Bill.
I intervened from a sedentary position in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary and he indicated that he would mention the industry. Regrettably, he left it and its future out in the cold. He did not mention agricultural production or the damage the Bill may well cause to the livestock industry.

Mr. Strang: If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of my speech in Hansard tomorrow he will see that I paid particular attention to that point. I discussed the role of the agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees and made clear that the Government had built into the Bill a procedure whereby, if a farmer really needed his house for an incoming worker, the committee would advise that there was agricultural need. We have been over this ground time and again. The committee can even advise that there is not just need but urgency, and the local authority must then respond.

Mr. Winterton: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. In my view he did not deal with the point adequately.
I need not remind the House that calving takes place during the year on livestock and dairy farms. A farmer may have in his tied accommodation a man who is no longer working for him, perhaps because of ill health or because he has taken another job, and night after night the farmer may be forced to spend long hours in helping cows to calve when he should be in bed, because cows do not always conveniently calve between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.

Mr. Swain: Are they never born within those hours?

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Winterton: I do not say that it never happens, but calvings do not necessarily take place within a convenient working day. Great strain and pressure can be put upon livestock and dairy farmers at certain times during the year —strain and pressure which would not occur very often if the Lords amendment were accepted. The Minister and the Government have not answered these questions.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)rose—

Mr. Winterton: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has only recently entered the Chamber.

Mr. Buchan: I have only recently come in, and I apologise to the House for that. The hon. Gentleman knows my normal involvement in agriculture. When the hon. Gentleman's wife is pregnant, does he ensure that the obstetrician remains in his house throughout the period?

Mr. Winterton: I am happy to say that on the three occasions that my wife has been pregnant and produced a fine child for me, I have taken her to the hospital—it has always been at night—and there has always been someone on duty. There is adequate staffing in most of our hospitals. They have skilled staffs, who realise that they have to work on a shift system. They are not available throughout both day and night, but when I have taken my wife to hospital she has been given the most excellent attention. That disposes of that rather irrelevant question easily and quickly.
I found it interesting that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss

Maynard) talked about security. The Government's tax proposals and the other pernicious legislation that they are pushing through the House are undermining the security of certain people who are fortunate enough to live on estates and in country houses which are of great benefit to the nation. Their future is insecure under a Socialist Administration. What security do they have? Likewise, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West easily overlooked the pertinent points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). He spoke about the great number of tied cottages occupied by people within the coal industry and the steel industry, and in the employ of the water authorities and local government. All these people are living in tied accommodation. When will the Government pick upon these other sectors and introduce similar legislation?
It is perhaps relevant to remind the the House that the Government may think—perhaps they are right—that a majority of farmers, who are private individuals with private enterprise businesses, vote for a party other than the Socialist Party, and that they can get away with introducing damaging legislation such as this without affecting their electoral chances. I put that to the House because it is a relevant factor.
I represent an area in Cheshire that has an important livestock industry. Many people have made representations to me—for example, members of the NFU Council and members of the NFU locally in Cheshire and Macclesfield—expressing grave concern about the problems that they will face as a result of this legislation. Would the Minister be happy to get up week after week during the calving season to assist and attend cows? Would he be happy to get up week after week to attend pigs, or poultry? I have had personal experience of the poultry industry, although I have no interest to declare. When electricity is cut off there are grave problems for those who are responsible for the huge poultry units. What happens when the electric fans go off? The answer is that tens of thousands of birds will be in jeopardy if no one is readily available immediately to open all the accesses to allow air in, or even to switch on emergency equipment. Grave losses could be


sustained if no one were immediately available. Have all these matters been properly considered by the Government?
In my view, too much legislation is being pushed through the House—this Bill is an example—that is party politically motivated. The hon. Member for Brightside talked about the poor agricultural worker. I am delighted that the hon. Lady has returned to her seat. There are a few poor agricultural workers, but in one breath she described them as poor and under-privileged while in the next she talked about the same people having cars and telephones. I am not sure that those factors go together.

Mr. Swain: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Winterton: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again. He made a useless exhibition of himself on his last intervention. I am reminded that his security of tenure has not been too good as a Member of this place. I gather that the union that sponsors him lays down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We shall not go into those matters.

Mr. Swain: The hon. Member should not be so childish.

Mr. Winterton: We are talking about security of tenure, and I was saying that the hon. Gentleman's union insists that he retires at 65. I personally regret that. Back to the amendment—surely it is important that a worker who is closely involved with animals—unfortunately the welfare of animals has not featured sufficiently in our debates—should live close to his work. If he finds that he must leave his job, and the house goes with the job, the house should be vacated. I wonder how many cases of genuine hardship the Minister or Labour Members can put forward in comparison with the total number of agricultural service cottages. I suspect that they could put forward only very few.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said, this is a politically motivated Bill. Those in another place have done a great service. If the Minister and his hon. Friends had read the Hansards covering the debates in another place, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have done, they would have seen that in no way was the consideration that was

given to this measure dogmatic or bigoted. Indeed, their Lordships considered it diligently and constructively.
This is not a wrecking amendment. It seeks to exclude from the Bill a vital sector of the agriculture industry that needs its tied cottages and accommodation for those who serve it and the livestock that is the essence of the industry. I have great pleasure in supporting the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr Pym). Once again, I thank those in another place for the tremendous job that they have done in trying to improve this unfortunate Bill.

Mr. John Ellis: A matter that must be made clear if we are to have a fair debate is whether the Opposition are against the abolition of tied cottages. If they are, that is a fair point of view. By means of the amendment, however, are they seeking to demonstrate that the provisions affecting livestock are unacceptable while the rest of the Bill is acceptable?
I believe that we should have a fair debate, and I meet the Opposition by saying that livestock has special needs. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has said that we must give special attention to poultry as well as cows calving. He said that if this iniquitous Bill becomes an Act there will be great suffering among livestock farmers. He said that if the fans go off, tens of thousands of birds will be suffocated. Where has he been living lately?
Modern conditions are such, irrespective of tied cottages, that unfortunately disasters take place almost day by day. If the hon. Gentleman reads the provincial Press in the Library—there are not many headlines of this sort in the national Press—he will see that they happen frequently. Modern methods of industrial farming, especially in poultry, lead to occasions when breakdowns can result in 50,000 birds being found suffocated. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) shakes his head in dissent. I have made a considerable study of these matters and I assure him that there is chapter and verse to confirm what I have said.
Why cannot we see more trends in agriculture in the poultry, beef and pig industries embracing automatic methods


of time switches and automatic feeding? If those systems are to be perfected, the industry should surely adopt the same approach as that adopted by other industries involving men working shifts.
We hear a great deal from the Opposition about fanners having to stay up night after night because animals calve at such awkward times. Again, why cannot some form of shift work be introduced? Let us apply some common sense to the matter. Therefore, I believe that many of the arguments advanced by the Opposition on the Bill are fallacious.
Has anybody calculated how many tied cottages are involved on the farms and in the villages? I know from my own observations that farms with stock do not always have a hindhouse. Some farms have such accommodation but others do not. Certainly some farms employ men who live in nearby villages. In other words, arrangements are made to cope with the situation. Therefore, on the basis of reasoning that argument is not a fair runner.
Labour Members are often accused by the Opposition of being ideological and of adopting a doctrinaire approach. Some of us have lived in these villages. Do any Conservative Members know what it means to live in a house and to know that one day a knock on the door may mean that one has to vacate the premises and find alternative accommodation? We say that that is wrong in all circumstances. It is not good for the man concerned, for the employer or for the industry.

Mr. Farr: What about National Coal Board accommodation?

Mr. Ellis: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) instances National Coal Board accommodation, but on how many occasions have miners been thrown out of their homes? Many of these eviction cases involve workers on the land. We say that this amounts to a social ill.
We believe that once the Bill is enacted the industry will be able to cope and that there will be a much happier relationship on the land which will benefit agriculture and will be seen to do so in future years.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I wish to take this opportunity to declare my interest. Before I entered this House I was a full-time farmer. I now employ four workers, who do an excellent job of work. I have given a great deal of thought, as a practical farmer and as a politician, to Lords Amendment No. 1 and I find it impossible to support it. If we support the Lords amendment, we shall discriminate in favour of one group of workers against another.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he is not prepared to support the Lords amendment. Perhaps he will explain why the Liberal Party in the other place voted unanimously in favour of it. He may like to know that a total of six Liberal peers voted for it and, indeed, that one of them, Lord Mackie, referred to the amendment as " monumental good 
sense ".

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that situation, but I was elected to this House by the people of Cardigan and, as agricultural spokesman for the Liberal Party, I am here to represent my constituents' views rather than the views of noble Lords in another place.
If the amendment is accepted, I shall have to return to Cardigan and tell my three stockmen that they will not be protected under the Bill, but at the same time I shall be able to tell my tractor driver that he is safeguarded by these provisions. That surely is wrong. I am sure that within a period of a year relationships! on my farm between1 the tractor driver and the stockmen would not go well. There are many farmers in Wales, and, indeed, in other parts of Britain, who employ tractor drivers, shepherds and stockmen.
In considering this matter, we should examine a former Prime Minister's words expressed only last year at the Royal Show. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) said on that occasion:
The Government's policy is to establish a framework which can give confidence for the future—for the consumer and for the producer so that he can plan and invest. At this time above all, we need to make the best and most economic use of our own resources, not only of land but the skills of our agricultural workers and farmers.


A survey was published soon after that speech in which a farmer was quoted as saying:
We would have more confidence in the future if we knew we would be allowed to keep the staff housing we have. This is a key to future confidence. We cannot produce without labour.
I believe that we are not abolishing the tied cottage system, because the staff housing will remain. We must do our utmost to secure staff housing for our stockmen and others. A farm is dependent on the efficient and dedicated efforts of its work force if its output is to increase. We have only to examine the figures over the last 15 years to see how dramatically the work force has declined. In 1960, 505,000 full-time workers were employed in agriculture. At present the figure is only 223,000. If we are to increase production, can we afford a further decrease in the labour force? I believe that if we are to succeed we must hold on to the present labour force and look after those men in the next 20 years.
I believe that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have no connection with agriculture but who are still worried about the welfare of livestock. Many people believe that stock will suffer, and, indeed, will be neglected, if the Lords amendment is not accepted. However, I do not take that view. I believe that the majority of stockmen will remain in the cottages in which they already live. I believe that the stockmen will not run away but will remain at their work.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who said that many chickens might be burnt overnight and that cows might not be able to calve. I know stockmen and I know the kind of work force that exists in agriculture. They look after the stock when the cows calve. They will be living in the staff house provided for them by the management. Therefore, there is no need to worry on that score at all. It is our duty as farmers, as employers, to look after the interests of our employees, who have given such excellent service to the industry.
Whatever we decide tonight, we must ensure that the agriculture industry continues to thrive and that it is not prevented from expanding. We must ensure the health and well-being of livestock and

give every encouragement to producers to increase their production from the land. In my view, therefore, we must not discriminate on behalf of one group of workers against the others. I shall be asking my hon. Friends to vote against the Lords amendment.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), who brings to the debate a combination of knowledge and experience, and a degree of impartiality which, unfortunately, is not shared by the majority of those sitting on the Opposition Benches. I wonder how much real political benefit accrues to the Opposition from seeking to make political capital from the Bill, to the extent that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was attempting to do.
I believe that the Bill is a serious attempt to balance the conflicting problems which have to be faced in this issue and that the amendment which the Lords have introduced would cut a very substantial part of the heart out of the Bill.
I remind hon. Members that if the Lords amendment were carried, whole villages would be adversely affected. I know one village in Essex where every house is owned by the farming company, a very large dairy organisation catering for a large part of Essex. Every house in the village is owned by that farming company I was parliamentary candidate in the constituency some years ago and found that it was virtually impossible to get a single person to tell me on the doorstep what his political views were because of apprehensions as to the attitude of the employer, the farming company.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield spoke of the Bill as having been forced on the Government by the militant left-wing of the Labour Party. I do not think that he would describe me as militant Left-wing, but I have spoken of my experience in the constituency, and there is absolutely no doubt of it whatsoever. Those living in tied cottages in agricultural areas feel all through their lives a degree of insecurity. They dare not express themselves politically to their bosses in a way which is fundamental


to the expression of proper individuality and freedom in our society.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If that is the case—and I accept that the hon. Gentleman holds that point of view sincerely—will he direct his attention to the other large sectors of industry which provide tied accommodation, and indicate whether he would support the abolition of tied accommodation in those industries? Will he say whether the reservations he has expressed about people living in agricultural tied accommodation are also reflected to these other sectors as well?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I was coming to that very point. I greatly welcome the Bill as a first step towards the abolition of tied accommodation in any field. I take the point about the National Coal Board, although I do not think that miners would feel any degree of apprehension about the Coal Board coming down on them if they were to display a Tory poster in a window.

Mr. Swain: Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Coal Board has already announced that every house in its possession, from the managerial level down to the lowest level, is up for sale to the sitting tenant or to the local authority? In my area alone during the past four years 968 houses have changed hands from the National Coal Board to the local authorities. God bless the Coal Board for selling them.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am very glad to learn of that progress, but there are many other people involved. There are the school caretakers, employees of local authorities, employees in catering establishments, managers of laundrettes, and so on. There is a very great degree of abuse where the house goes with the job. I shall be very anxious to see the principle which we have started in the Bill extended to cover all these other categories.
I believe that in the Bill the balance is right and that we have tackled the problem correctly, but it involves a risk that the agricultural tenant who is threatened with eviction will override the priority of other people on the housing waiting list in the area; others on the waiting list will be displeased. Never-

theless, I believe that the balance in the Bill is correct. I remind Conservative Members that, as has been said, at present if a farmer wishes to gain possession of a tied cottage from the family of an agricultural worker, or from the worker himself, there is a six-months' delay. I agree that the real effect of the Bill may well be to impose a duty on the local authority to find accommodation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Has the hon. Member looked at the Bill's wording?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am familial with the words of the Bill. I was present in Committee and the hon. Member was not.
Nevertheless, a strong obligation is imposed on the local authority, and I believe that the overwhelming majority of local authorities—most of them are Conservative-dominated—will seek to do what is necessary. I believe that the farmer will find it much easier to get the outgoing tenant or worker rehoused by the local authority, and will be able to get his new employee into the accommodation more quickly than if the Bill had not been introduced.
The balance of the Bill, I believe, is a fair one. I hope, as I have already1 said, that it will be possible to extend it to a great many other areas, but we have to take note of the fact that we cannot put an evicted laundrette manager straight into council accommodation over the heads of others who have been on the waiting list for some time. This is an experiment, in the sense that we shall be able to see how it works, and then we must learn, from experience with the Bill, how it can be applied elsewhere. Every piece of legislation is to some extent an experiment. The hon. Member for Macclesfield may grin, but every social change involves a degree of experimentation.
I feel that the Bill is likely to work satisfactorily. If we were to accept the Lords amendment it would mean allowing whole villages to remain subservient to a single employer, with every person knowing that he could lose his home and his job at the same time. If the amendment were to be accepted the Bill would not be worth having. I therefore trust that the amendment will be rejected.

Mr. Peter Mills: I start by declaring an interest. I have lived in a tied cottage, and I do not think that many hon. Members can say that. I can certainly say that I did not have any problems.
I take issue with the Parliamentary Secretary when he talks about a wrecking amendment. We do not believe that it is a wrecking amendment in the sense in which he speaks. We are trying to show our concern at what will happen because of these measures. Without being rude, I would emphasise that our concern is based on experience. From my knowledge of the industry and of stockmen generally, I believe that most stockmen want to live very close to their work. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but this is true. This amendment is not a wrecking amendment, it simply shows concern based on experience.
8.0 p.m.
I take issue with the Parliamentary Secretary when he talks about "basic advances in the countryside". This shows how little he knows about the countryside; perhaps he has forgotten. However, that phrase will hang around his neck like a cow's tether in years to come, especially when we see the Bill's result on many stock farms.
The Parliamentary Secretary also said that this had been a campaign for many years. I suggest that not every campaign is wise. Some have even proved disastrous. I do not say that this campaign is disastrous, but certainly I believe it to be unwise. We must protect the workers and the farmers, but above all we must protect the agricultural industry as a whole.
It is very sad that the Government feel that they have to bring in a measure like this to deal with a very small number of farmers who have let down the farming community in this way. It is sad that the Government see fit to bring in a measure of this kind when so many fanners are utterly responsible in this respect.
It is also important to highlight why the Government have picked on agriculture. We have never had a satisfactory answer to that question. They talk about moving into other spheres. In west Devon, which is truly rural, there is a large number of tied cottages. On Dartmoor, most of the prison officers are in

tied houses. Will the Government extend this principle to Dartmoor? If they do, it will be very difficult to operate Dartmoor Prison from Tavistock or elsewhere. Why should the Government pick on agriculture? If I were told that legislation to deal with other sections of industry would be introduced I might be a little happier.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Miss Maynard) said one of the saddest things I have heard in this House for a long time. She said that farm workers were under-privileged. That is an insult to them. I do not believe that they feel under-privileged one little bit. That is not my experience in working and living with them. Generally, I have found them to be a proud bunch of men—proud because they know their job. I think that that was a very sad phrase the hon. Lady used.
The hon. Lady also talked about stockmen always being able to use the telephone. What a remarkable statement. I cannot imagine a cow 'phoning to say that it needs a stockman. The whole trouble is that the hon. Lady and others like her do not realise just how stockmen feel about these matters. The important thing to them is to have that last look around their yards or over their flocks. They are not always paid for it, but they enjoy it. If they see trouble they put it right at once and that saves them a lot of work in the long run. But they must be on the spot. To talk about the telephone shows how little the hon. Lady knows about the real problems of stockmen.
Being a stockman is, of course, a tie. Some hon. Members in this House have never worked with cows daily, as I have. It means milking them 14 times a week, and very often it means no holidays. Of course it is a tie, and of course it is difficult. Naturally, we want to move towards a time when there is far more active relief for stockmen so that they have more time for their own use, but is it wrong to think that they are not concerned about their stock. In many cases they count their stock as their own, and looking after it is their life. Woe betide the farmer who gives a stockman too many orders, because in most cases it is the stockman who want to run the show.
This whole business of tied cottages has been exaggerated. If a count were taken of every stockman in this country it would be found that most would say that they want to live near their stock, in order to help themselves. To talk about the telephone shows the poverty of the Labour Party in these matters.
This is a very sad debate in many ways. I admit that there is a small minority of farmers of whom I am ashamed, but it is a small number, and to bring in a measure like this to deal with them will do nothing but harm to the farming industry, and in particular to stock farming.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: If the hon. Member believes that this is such a small minority which is abusing the system, would he agree that only a very small number of farm workers abuse it also? Why should he be apprehensive about a system whereby a farm worker remains in a cottage unless other accommodation is there for him to turn to?

Mr. Hawkins: I was brought up among stockmen. I have an interest to declare, in that I managed several estates with tied cottages. This is one of my major interests in Norfolk, where this campaign has been continuing for 40 or 50 years. I appreciate the arguments that have come from Norfolk and I understand them. I would want to see the system done away with if I knew that enough new cottages were available to go around so that an incoming stockman was not put to any great hardship.
The Government never think of the incoming stockman in the situation that arises when a stockman dies and his widow wants to get into a council house. The incoming stockman is the man who has been employed to look after the flock or the herd and sometimes he cannot take up his duties without the tied cottage system. That is where we find ourselves in difficulty. Quite frankly, I find that there is always one particularly bad tied cottage case in my area which comes up during the General Election period. I wonder whether it is done deliberately by my opponent. Personally, I would like to see the system done away with if I knew that there were enough cottages in the area to go round and that there was a guarantee for the new man of a "cottage on the job".
The stockman is the salt of all workers, and it is true that the stock is his stock. It was always "my horses", and there have been instances of a horseman stealing from the next-door corn bin to get his horses extra feed.

Mr. John Ellis: There is no point at issue between us here. I know of a case in which an employee was not particularly concerned about the wages for himself, but when it was suggested that he should consider cutting down rations for his animals, he was so angry that he left.

Mr. Hawkins: I entirely agree with that. As I have said, I should like this system done away with if that were possible. But the venom displayed by the Parliamentary Secretary was enough to make anyone oppose him. However, I have doubts whether it is right to divide farm workers into two classes—whether it is right to give stockmen less security than other farm workers. I am worried on that point, and also because it will be extremely difficult for local authorities to carry out the rehousing that the Government envisage. There are already priority lists for people who are without housing. Quite rightly, all the Service Ministries recommend that Service men who have not had the chance to get housing points with a local authority should be given an advantage. The Bill will provide yet a third group of people who will be put ahead of those who, by right of long standing, have a place on the council house list.
I hope that we shall find sufficient cottages in the right places, because without them this scheme will not work. The incoming stockman who wants to look after his stock properly and to be with them will not get a house, and it is that sort of person that we want to take care of.

Mr. Jopling: I begin by declaring my interest. One thing that has emerged from the debate is the clear indication of the way in which the guillotine has provided totally insufficient time hi which to deal with the Lords amendments. We have seen the extent to which Labour Members have participated in the debate, which has taken a considerable amount of time. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) put his finger on the point when he said that this had been a sad debate in some ways. Many of us


have publicly acknowledged that the Bill owes its birth, to a large extent, to the activities of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard). In her speech today she demonstrated her bitterness and venom, and her reliance on the life-long class warfare which she has carried on, and showed some of the misguided philosophy that lies behind the Bill.
As we have proceeded further with the Bill the Parliamentary Secretary has shown, as one of my hon. Friends remarked, increased venom in answering the debates on the amendments. Labour Members have clearly shown that the Bill is backed more by their desire to fulfil arbitrary political objections than the effect that it is likely to have on the industry and those who work in it.
When the Parliamentary Secretary opened the debate he spoke about the amendment's standing between the Government and its political objectives. That clearly summed up the position of Labour Members, whose attitude is far more political than practical. They have spent very little of their speeches discussing the merits of the amendments, the welfare of farm animals, or the convenience of farm workers. All the talk about cars and telephones is just so much nonsense. We know that Labour Members are hell-bent to secure their political objectives. That is clearly demonstrated by their attitude to Scotland. Their only reason for not applying the Bill to Scotland is that farm workers there are against it.
8.15 p.m.
Labour Members have this evening tried to dress up their arguments with an attack on the other place. That is totally irrelevant, especially in view of what happened last week on the Dock Work Regulation Bill, on which the actions of the other place enabled us here to think again on those matters.
I should like to take up what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said about little attention having been paid to the views and studies that have been produced about the impact of the Bill. The Minister said that the Bill would not lead to a reduction in agricultural production, or have a bad effect on the livestock industry. Let me refer him to page 3 paragraph 7 of the document that Miss Ruth Gasson produced. It stated that:

While livestock producers as a whole have a very good case for requiring workers to live on the premises, pedigree breeders and milk producers were the most insistent that their enterprises would be unworkable without a key man living on the spot.
The Government have not considered sufficiently the effect of the Bill on agricultural production or on their White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources". The Bill will set back further the attainment of the targets in that White Paper.
The Government have defied the advice of those who know about agriculture. We have seen the totally impractical attitudes displayed by the hon. Members for Brightside and Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) towards the agriculture industry and those who work in it.

Mr. John Ellis: If the hon. Member is suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) and I are motivated only by prejudice and malice, will he explain why the Conservatives have lost the support of the Liberals? Does he suggest that the Liberals are motivated in the same way?

Mr. Jopling: I could not think of a more helpful intervention by the hon. Member. The Liberal Party in the country is a totally unco-ordinated group, which does one thing in this place and something totally different in another. No doubt we shall see more examples of this nonsense. We do not know what the Liberals are doing, and I do not think that they know themselves.
We have heard too little from Labour Members about the problems of incoming stockmen, so I believe that we should press the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) expressed honestly-felt doubts about the amendments. I hope that he will recall te opening remark of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), that it is surely best, in view of the uncertainties surrounding the Bill, to start with the non-livestock sector. We must try for a few years to see how it works, and deal with the livestock side later.
I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary intends to reply to the debate. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote in support of the other place on these amendments.

Mr. Strang: I shall reply briefly, because I understand that the Opposition want to make progress. Indeed, that was why we accepted their amendment to the procedure.
Virtually all the arguments about this matter have been gone over time and again. The issue is quite simple. The Government believe that a farm worker and his family should have a right to the roof over their heads comparable with the right that is taken for granted by the vast majority of workers and their families.
This Bill is about security. It is about ending the insecurity of the farm worker with a young family who is worried about the future if he loses his job. It is about ending the insecurity of the wife who sees her husband's health deteriorating while working on the farm and wonders what will happen to the family when he is no longer able to work. It is about ending the insecurity of the old farm worker who goes on working beyond the age of 65 because he does not have a house to which he can retire.
That is what the Bill is about. That is why the Government cannot accept this wrecking amendment, which would exclude about 25 per cent. of farm workers and their families from coverage of this legislation. They would have no legal protection whatsoever.
The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) said that there were very few evictions each year. I am not sure how many evictions are carried out. The Tavistock Institute reckoned that there were about 1,200 court orders a year.

Mr. Mills: The Parliamentary Secretary must realise that there are very few real evictions. Many of the court orders are taken out in collaboration

Division No. 412.]
AYES
[8.24 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Buchanan, Richard


Allaun, Frank
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)


Anderson, Donald
Bidwell, Sydney
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)


Archer, Peter
Bishop, E. S.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Armstrong, Ernest
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Campbell, Ian


Ashley, Jack
Boardman, H.
Canavan, Dennis


Ashton, Joe
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cant, R. B.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Atkinson, Norman
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Carter, Ray


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bradley, Tom
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Clemitson, Ivor


Bates, Alt
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael


Bean, R. E.
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cohen, Stanley


Beith. A. J.
Buchan, Norman
Coleman, Donald

with the farm workers concerned so that they can get other houses.

Mr. Strang: I do not dispute that some of the court orders are taken out in collaboration with farm workers, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) said, it is somewhat demeaning and unfair that farm workers should be dragged through the courts, even if it is in collusion with their employers, to obtain the offer of alternative accommodation by local authorities. Sensible, progressive, practical farmers welcome this measure because it will end that degrading process, which some of them dislike just as much as their workers.
The issue is simple. We cannot accept the exclusion of this vast number of workers from the coverage of this legislation. I think that the House was impressed by the point made by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), based on his own experience—namely, how can we tolerate a situation in which one farm worker is in a cottage and has a basic protection because he drives a tractor, whereas the farm worker in the cottage next door, because he works with livestock, has no legal rights regarding his accommodation when he ceases to work for his employer?
This is not a question of how many evictions there are or how many court orders are taken out. That is the tip of the iceberg. That is the manifestation of the situation. We believe that it is wrong that a farm worker's accommodation should be dependent on the attitude of his employer. I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment: —

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 253.

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Price, William (Rugby)


Conlan, Bernard
Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Corbett, Robin
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cowans, Harry
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cox, Thomas (Tooling)
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cronin, John
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Gerald
Rooker, J. W.


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kelley, Richard
Roper, John


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rose, Paul B.


Davidson, Arthur
Kinnock, Neil
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lamborn, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Ryman, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sandelson, Neville


Deakins, Eric
Leadbitter, Ted
Sedgemore, Brian


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lee, John
Selby, Harry


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Doig, Peter
Litterick, Tom
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dormand, J. D.
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Loyden, Eddie
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunn, James A.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silverman, Julius


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Dr J Dickson
Small, William


Edge, Geoff
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McElhone, Frank
Snape, Peter


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Spearing, Nigel


Ennals, David
MacKenzie, Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackintosh, John P.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Maclennan, Robert
Stoddart, David


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stott, Roger


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


Faulds, Andrew
Madden, Max
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Magee, Bryan
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Simon
Swain, Thomas


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Flannery, Martin
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marquand, David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Forrester, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Tierney, Sydney


Freud, Clement
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tomlinson, John


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mendelson, John
Torney, Tom


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mikardo, Ian
Urwin, T. W.


George, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Ginsburg, David
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Golding, John
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gould, Bryan
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watkinson, John


Grant, John (Islington C)
Moyle, Roland
Weetch, Ken


Grocott, Bruce
Newens Stanley
Weitzman, David


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Noble, Mike
Wellbeloved, James


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Gordon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric
White, James (Pollok)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Orbach, Maurice
Whitlock, William


Hatton, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley 
Wigley, Dafydd


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Ovenden, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Heffer, Eric S.
Padley, Walter
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hooley, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Horam, John
Pardoe, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Park, George
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Parker, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Huckfield, Les
Pavitt, Laurie
Woodall, Alec


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Pendry, Tom
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Penhaligon, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hunter, Adam
Phipps, Dr Colin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Prentice. Rt Hon Reg
Mr. Ted Graham and


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr. James Tinn


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)









NOES


Adley, Robert
Goodlad, Alastair
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Aitken, Jonathan
Gorst, John
Morgan, Geraint


Alison, Michael
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Awdry, Daniel
Gray, Hamish
Mudd, David


Baker, Kenneth
Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey


Banks, Robert
Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Grylls, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Hall, Sir John
Newton, Tony


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nott, John


Benyon, W.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hampson, Dr Keith
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Bitten, John
Hannam, John
Page, John (Harrow West)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Blaker, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Richard (Workington)


Body, Richard
Havers, Sir Michael
Paisley, Rev Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Pattie, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Percival, Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Heseltine, Michael
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hicks, Robert
Pink, R. Bonner


Bradford, Rev Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hodgson, Robin
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Brittan, Leon
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hordern, Peter
Prior, Rt Hon James


Brotherton, Michael
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howell. David (Guildford)
Raison, Timothy


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rathbone, Tim


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Buck, Antony
Hurd, Douglas
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Budgen, Nick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bulmer, Esmond
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Burden, F. A.
James, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Ridsdale, Julian


Carlisle, Mark
Jessel, Toby
Rifkind, Malcolm


Carson, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Channon, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Churchill, W. S.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Clegg, Walter
Kimball, Marcus
Royle, Sir Anthony


Cockcroft, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Sainsbury, Tim


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cope, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Scott, Nicholas


Cordle, John H.
Knox, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cormack, Patrick
Lamont, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Corrie, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, Colin


Costain, A. P.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shersby, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Crowder, F. P.
Lawson, Nigel
Sinclair, Sir George


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Smith. Dudley (Warwick)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speed, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Ian
Spence, John


Drayson, Burnaby
Loveridge, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sproat, Iain


Dunlop, John
McCusker, H.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Macfarlane, Neil
Stanley, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacGregor, John
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Elliott, Sir William
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stokes, John


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Tapsell, Peter


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Madel, David
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Farr, John
Mates, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Fell, Anthony
Mather, Carol
Temple-Morris, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maude, Angus
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Trotter, Neville


Forman, Nigel
Mayhew, Patrick
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fox, Marcus
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mills, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Fry, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
Wakeham, John


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moate, Roger
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester).


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Molyneaux, James
Walters, Dennis


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Monro, Hector
Warren, Kenneth


Glyn, Dr Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Weatherill, Bernard


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wells, John







Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Winterton, Nicholas
Younger, Hon George
Mr. Fred Silvester and


Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Mr. Cecil Parkinson

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 2 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 1, line 20, leave out "and
(v) forestry;

Mr. Strang: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): It will be convenient to consider at the same time the following Lords amendments: No. 4, Nos. 7 to 9, Nos. 53 to 57, Nos. 59 to 61, and Nos. 72, 74 81, 83, 84, 118 and 129.

Mr. Strang: All these Lords amendments are concerned with forestry, and the total effect of them, by removing forestry from the list of activities included in agriculture, would be to preclude the application of the Bill at any time to whole-time workers in forestry. This is not acceptable.
I remind the House that in the consultative document we noted that existing tied cottage legislation would apply to many forestry workers and that
pay and conditions for many forestry workers are subject to the Agricultural Wages Act".
It was clear to us when we came to draft legislation that the links between forestry and the remainder of agriculture were such that forestry was an integral part of the agriculture industry and should be included in the Bill.
There was a need to improve the information available on the situation in forestry, particularly with a view to being able to give housing authorities a clear indication of their likely obligations towards this sector. A survey is presently being conducted on behalf of the Forestry Commission by the Tavistock Institute to provide this information. The specific reference to forestry in the Bill is provided to ensure that a clear distinction can be made between workers who are covered from the appointed day for agriculture and those who are covered from the later appointed day for forestry.
I should add that we expect the Forestry Commission, which is the largest woodland owner in the country, to treat

its tied cottage occupants—when the legislation is brought into effect for forestry—exactly as private forestry landlords will be required to do. Although the Forestry Commission is exempt from a statutory obligation under the Bill, there will be no question of discrimination in practice between the one sector and the other.

Mr. W. Benyon: I first declare my interest as an owner of woodlands and, of course, of the houses that go with those woodlands. In the rest of the proceedings, I hope that my interest can also be taken to apply to agriculture.
I hope that the Government will think again about this. The forestry situation is most extraordinary. As it stands at the moment, the Bill does not apply to forestry until the appointed day arrives. It will not apply to Scotland if and when the appointed day is designated. From the last debate it is clear that the Scottish Union of Agricultural Workers does not want the Bill to apply to agriculture, and there have been no moves to have it applied to forestry in Scotland.
The Forestry Commission itself is excluded, with the 1,500 houses that it owns for its own employees. If and when the Bill applies to forestry it will therefore apply to a very small proportion of the industry itself. To date, no previous legislation concerned with agriculture and forestry has defined forestry as forming part of agriculture. Therefore, there is no precedent whatever for including it in legislation such as this.
The next point is that, by and large, forestry exists in extremely isolated areas. This point was brought out to the full during the debates in the other place. Therefore, the need for employees to be on the spot is absolute. I ask the Minister point-blank whether the advice that he has received from the Forestry Commission is that the industry cannot continue if it cannot be assured of accommodation for its work force within a reasonable distance of its operations.
This summer has proved conclusively the need for this, because we have had the great menace of fires. I share my own experience with the House, because


I have lost a considerable acreage of young trees. In fact, it was only the heroic efforts of the fire brigade, and my own staff, that managed to stop the destruction spreading further. The same thing happened in parts of Yorkshire and in Scotland. The need for staff to be near at hand in these isolated areas has been proved conclusively during this hot, dry summer.
The Government would do much better to accept, first, that no demand has been made by the industry and its workers for forestry to be included in the Bill. Secondly, the problems of definition are very great. Most forestry operations combine the growing of trees with the processing of the timber. That is an industrial process, and would have to be excluded from the Bill.
Thirdly, as I have already said, a large part of the industry is excluded in any event.
Fourthly, the location and organisation of the forestry industry presents great difficulties.
It seems that the Government are seeking to save face by delaying the application of the Bill to forestry. It would be far more honest and straightforward, and would benefit the stability and progress of the industry, if they came clean and took forestry out completely. I therefore advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: The eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) has been so compelling that I would not have ventured to take part in the debate but for the Minister's opening words, which were so disgraceful as to be hardly credible. He said that forestry is an integral part of agriculture. It is, of course, a far more important industry than agriculture.
The Bill's farcical nature is evident when one considers the balance of forestry among the different parts of the United Kingdom. The major effort in forestry now is in Scotland, but as both Scotland and Northern Ireland will be exempt from the Bill we are really talking about England and Wales. It is farcical to pass legislation applying these provisions only to England and Wales.
All that my hon. Friend has said about the problems of working in isolated areas and the dangers of fire—which were so evident both in 1976 and in 1975—needs no further emphasis. But it is difficult to leave this matter without referring to the Minister's extraordinary words about the Forestry Commission—that it was to be asked, persuaded or somehow cajoled into treating its employees exactly the same as those employed by private forestry. That gives the ultimate air of unreality to the Government's motion. I have the greatest pleasure in giving my utmost support to my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister will see sense and decide to withdraw his stupid motion.

Mr. Watkinson: I am moved to speak only because of the claim of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) that agriculture is less important than forestry. That might conceivably be true in my constituency, which includes the Forest of Dean and where forestry is a major industry, but it could not apply across the country. I support the motion and reiterate the point which lies behind the Bill—that is, that we are determined to see an end to tied cottages generally within the country and particularly in agriculture.

Mr. Jasper More: When the hon. Gentleman says "within the country", does he include Scotland and Ireland?

Mr. Watkinson: We have been through that many times. They are not included in the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
There is a principle at stake here. We wish to see an end to tied cottages. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) spoke eloquently about this matter, but I do not think that even he could pretend that the force of the argument used in the preceding debate about the necessity for having dairymen and stockmen on the premises is not weightier than the argument he used about forestry. We all know of the exceptional circumstances this year. In my constituency problems arose from fires, but the hon. Gentleman will have to accept that the most important element in bringing those fires under control was the fire brigade, which in my area had to travel several miles to deal with the fires.
I welcome the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Minister to carry


out an investigation of forest tied-cottage dwellings. I shall support him in rejecting the Lords amendment.

Mr. Strang: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to some questions which have been asked. The National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers has been consistently in favour of the protection and coverage of forestry workers as well as of agricultural workers. Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), but my impression was that he sought to apply that across the border. We are not discussing Scotland because the legislation does not apply to Scotland. The Forestry Commission has not opposed the implementation of the measure.
I do not want to be drawn into the argument about whether forestry or agri-

Division No. 413.]
AYES
[8.52 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Allaun, Frank
Cronin, John
Grant, John (Islington C)


Anderson, Donald
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Grocott, Bruce


Archer, Peter
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hardy, Peter


Armstrong, Ernest
Cryer, Bob
Harper, Joseph


Ashley, Jack
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davidson, Arthur
Hatton, Frank


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Heffer, Eric S.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hooley, Frank


Bates, Alf
Deakins, Eric
Horam, John


Bean, R. E.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Beith, A. J.
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dempsey, James
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Doig, Peter
Huckfield, Les


Bidwell, Sydney
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bishop, E. S.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Boardman, H.
Dunn, James A.
Hunter, Adam


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunnett, Jack
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Eadie, Alex
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Edge, Geoff
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bradley, Tom
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Janner, Greville


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
English, Michael
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ennals, David
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
John, Brynmor


Buchanan, Richard
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Campbell, Ian
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Canavan, Dennis
Flannery, Martin
Kaufman, Gerald


Cant, R. B.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kelley, Richard


Carmichael, Nell
Ford, Ben
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Carter, Ray
Forrester, John
Kinnock, Neil


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lambie, David


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lamborn, Harry


Clemitson, Ivor
Freeson, Reginald
Lamond, James


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Freud, Clement
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Cohen, Stanley
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Leadbitter, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lee, John


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
George, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Conlan, Bernard
Gilbert, Dr John
Lipton, Marcus


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ginsburg, David
Litterick, Tom


Corbett, Robin
Golding, John
Lomas, Kenneth


Cowans, Harry
Gould, Bryan
Loyden, Eddie


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gourlay, Harry
Luard, Evan


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Graham, Ted
Lyon, Alexander (York)

culture is more important. I think that on reflection we would all agree that they are both basic and enormously important industries in our national economy. They are interrelated. Very often there is coordination between forestry and farming. In some instances the farmer or small landowner works his forestry with his farm.

I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, West (Mr. Watkinson) said. I am glad to have his support, well knowing the deep interest he takes in forestry matters and his commitment to forestry in his constituency.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment: —

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 248.

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Parker, John
Strang, Gavin


Mabon, Dr J Dickson
Parry, Robert
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


McCartney, Hugh
Pavitt, Laurie
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Pendry, Tom
Swain, Thomas


McElhone, Frank
Penhaligon, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Perry, Ernest
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


MacKenzie, Gregor
Phipps, Dr Colin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mackintosh, John P.
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Maclennan, Robert
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Price, William (Rugby)
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


McNamara, Kevin
Radice, Giles
Tierney, Sydney


Madden, Max
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tinn, James


Magee, Bryan
Richardson, Miss Jo
Tomlinson, John


Mahon, Simon
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Torney, Tom


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Urwin, T. W.


Marks, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Marquand, David
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rooker, J. W.
Watkins, David


Meacher, Michael
Roper, John
Watkinson, John


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Rose, Paul B.
Weetch, Ken


Mendelson, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Weitzman, David


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wellbeloved, James


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Rowlands, Ted
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Ryman, John
White, James (Pollok)


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Sandelson, Neville
Whitehead, Phillip


Moonman, Eric
Sedgemore, Brian
Whitlock, William


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Selby, Harry
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Moyle, Roland
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Newens, Stanley
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Noble, Mike
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Ogden, Eric
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


O'Halloran, Michael
Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Orbach, Maurice
Small, William
Woodall, Alec


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Woof, Robert


Ovenden, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Snaps, Peter
Young, David (Bolton E)


Padley, Walter
Spearing, Nigel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Palmer, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. James Hamilton and


Pardoe, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Mr. David Stoddart.


Park, George
Stott, Roger





NOES


Adley, Robert
Channon, Paul
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Aitken, Jonathan
Churchill, W. S.
Fry, Peter


Alison, Michael
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Speithorne)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)


Awdry, Daniel
Clegg, Walter
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Baker, Kenneth
Cockcroft, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Banks, Robert
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Bell, Ronald
Cope, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Cordle, John H.
Gorst, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cormack, Patrick
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Benyon, W.
Corrie, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Costain, A. P.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Biffen, John
Critchley, Julian
Gray, Hamish


Biggs-Davison, John
Crowder, F. P.
Grieve, Percy


Blaker, Peter
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Grist, Ian


Body, Richard
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Grylls, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hall, Sir John


Bottomley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown]
Drayson, Burnaby
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bradford, Rev Robert
Dunlop, John
Hannam, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Brittan, Leon
Elliott, Sir William
Hastings, Stephen


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Emery, Peter
Havers, Sir Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Eyre, Reginald
Hawkins, Paul


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hayhoe, Barney


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fairgrieve, Russell
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Farr, John
Heseltine, Michael


Buck, Antony
Fell, Anthony
Hicks, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Higgins, Terence L.


Bulmer, Esmond
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hodgson, Robin


Burden, F. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Holland, Philip


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hordern, Peter


Carlisle, Mark
Forman, Nigel
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carson, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fox, Marcus
Hunt, John (Bromley)







Hurd, Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott, Nicholas


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Moate, Roger
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


James, David
Molyneaux, James
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Monro, Hector
Shepherd, Colin


Jessel, Toby
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Shersby, Michael


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sims, Roger


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Morgan, Geraint
Sinclair, Sir George


Jopling, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Judd, Frank
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Speed, Keith


Kershaw, Anthony
Mudd, David
Spence, John


Kilfedder, James
Neave, Airey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Kimball, Marcus
Nelson, Anthony
Sproat, Iain


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Neubert, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Newton, Tony
Stanley, John


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Nott, John
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Knox, David
Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Lamont, Norman
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Stokes, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, John (Harrow West)
Tapsell, Peter


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Page, Richard (Workington)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Lawson, Nigel
Paisley, Rev Ian
Tebbit, Norman


Le Marchant, Spencer
Parkinson, Cecil
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Percival, Ian
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Lloyd, Ian
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D.


Loveridge, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Trotter, Neville


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Tugendhat, Christopher


McCusker, H.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
van Straubenzee, W. R


Macfarlane. Nell
Prior, Rt Hon James
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


MacGregor, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Viggers, Peter


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Raison, Timothy
Wakeham, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rathbone, Tim
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Made), David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walters, Dennis


Marten, Neil
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Warren, Kenneth


Mates, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian
Weatherill, Bernard


Mather, Carol
Rifkind, Malcolm
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Maude, Angus
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Mawby, Ray
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Younger, Hon George


Mayhew, Patrick
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Mr. Michael Roberts and


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Mr. Fred Silvester.


Mills, Peter
Sainsbury, Tim

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 dis-agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 2, line 20, at end insert—
(3A) In this Act "relevant licence" and "relevant tenancy" have the meanings given by Schedule (Meaning of "relevant licence" and "relevant tenancy") to this Act.

Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 10, 38 to 40—plus Government Amendment —75 to 77—plus Government Amendments—108, 123, 125 and 127.

Mr. Armstrong: The House will be pleased to hear that the amendments are less formidable than their length would suggest. Their main effect is to transfer the contents of Clause 2 to a new schedule and to deal with two points of substance which were troubling the

Opposition. They were welcomed by spokesmen for the Opposition in another place and I trust that they will be equally welcome here.
The first point of substance covered in the new schedule concerns board. Out policy intention is that no worker receiving board should be protected, just as under the Rent Acts no tenant who receives board qualifies for protection. Under the Bill in its current form, where a farmer provided a qualifying worker with board but charged him no rent, such a worker would be protected, though a worker who paid some rent in similar circumstances would not be protected. That is not the effect that we set out to achieve. The new schedule sets matters right. It also deals in similar form with attendance. I imagine, however, that in the agricultural world attendance is not likely to loom large, although the question of board could in some parts.
The second point of substance concerns hostels. The amendments make


sure that occupants of hostels are excluded from protection, which is not to extend to a worker sharing a dwelling for four or more persons where each person has one room, and only one, to himself. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have both said that the residual problem of hostels would not be solved easily. The detailed nature of the amendments on the subject—amendments that are complicated and technical—bear out our warnings, but I am sure that the end result is one on which both the Government and Opposition are agreed.

Mr. Rossi: Earlier this evening I submitted a manuscript to Lords Amendment No. 77. I understand that Mr. Speaker has been kind enough to select it but that it is still being duplicated for circulation to hon. Members. This is part of the problem if the Government are taken unawares, with the result that we have little time to consider these matters. The Government are in as much difficulty now as possibly we were in the early hours of the morning because they brought this matter forward so quickly.
My amendment seeks to insert in Lords Amendment No. 77
for the purposes of this schedule".
I seek to do so to make clear that the modifications that are being made to Section 2 of the Rent Act 1968 are purely for the purposes of the schedule and for no other reason and that they relate to agricultural tenancies and no others.
I must confess that when I first read the schedule, which is written in extremely complex and complicated language, dealing with highly technical matters under the Rent Acts, I was somewhat alarmed. If one reads paragraph 3 of the schedule in isolation, it makes the bald statement that Section 2 of the Rent Act 1968 is being modified to a certain extent. That is what the language of sub-paragraph (3) states. I appreciate that the foregoing paragraphs appear to imply that the relevant licence and the relevant tenancy are defined by reference to subsequent amendments in paragraph 3 to which I am referring.
On one construction of the schedule, it can be said that the only effect of sub-paragraph (3) in law is inasmuch as

it relates to the preceding paragraphs 1 and 2. That is the conclusion that can be reached if paragraphs 1 and 2 are read first. However, if we take sub-paragraph (3) in isolation, someone coming to the Bill for the first time could correctly say that it is a bald statement of law without qualification that Section 2 of the Rent Act 1968 is modified. If that construction can be put on the paragraph the ramifications are enormous.
It is to ensure that no doubt can arise that I wish to insert the words in the amendment. Unless it is made clear beyond peradventure, doubt could be caused. We start in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 with the statement that we omit paragraph (a) of Section 2 of the Rent Act 1968. That sub-paragraph of Section 2 of the 1968 Act ensures that tenancies at a low rent are not protected tenancies. If we do not ensure that end by removing paragraph 2(a) of the 1968 Act, it could happen that if the wrong interpretation were put on the schedule a person would find that he had let into possession a protected tenant and had been denied his home. That would be the position if he had to leave his house for some time and, in order to prevent squatters moving in, he let it to a friend at a nominal rent—for example, £1 a week, a shilling a week or, as is done quite frequently, a case of whisky at the end of six months as payment in kind.
Similarly, complications could arise in the hotel industry. Hoteliers often acquire accommodation and let it to their work force at nominal rents so that they can attract staff to their hotels. I am referring not to people who reside in a hotel under service occupancies but to staff who are outside the hotel in accommodation provided for them by the hotel at nominal rents. If the Lords amendment remains as it is, unqualified, the danger may arise that those hotels will find that all the accommodation would become subject to protected tenancies. I am advised that the effect on the tourist industry would be considerable and very much to its disadvantage. Therefore, we must make clear that no such suggestion is implied by the legislation.
9.15 p.m.
Paragraph 3(4) of the new Schedule 1A could cause considerable difficulty. That provision recasts the conditions under which attendance is taken into account in


deciding whether a tenancy is protected. The Rent Act 1968 contains words to the effect that the attendance must represent a substantial part of the rent paid. That matter has now been determined by the Court of Appeal in the case of Woodward v. Docherty, although in that case the court was dealing with a furnished tenancy. Nevertheless, attendance in terms of furnished tenancies is dealt with in the same sub-paragraph and it was considered in that way by the Court of Appeal.
The effect of the sub-paragraph is to override the decision of the Court of Appeal. The courts would be thrown back to the somewhat unsatisfactory situation that obtained in earlier years as thrown up by the case of Sagoo v. Goel. The courts were there concerned not with assessing the value of attendance or furniture in relation to rent but with the value of the services or furniture provided to the tenant irrespective of any arithmetical calculation of rent. That would be an unsatisfactory departure in regard to tenants—I speak in general terms rather than in terms of agricultural tenants—if they were denied the protection given them by the Court of Appeal in the case of Woodward v. Docherty.
Unless we are careful to ensure that paragraph 3(4) of the schedule relates only to what is contained in the schedule under the kind of construction that I suggest, the implications for the general law of landlord and tenant could be consider able. That is the reason for my amendment. Since the Minister said in opening this discussion that the Government in tended to limit these matters simply to agricultural tenancies and not extend them to the general law of landlord and tenant under the Rent Act, I hope that he will accept this small amendment to make the situation clear beyond any shadow of doubt.
The other matter I wish to mention concerns the Minister's amendment to Lords Amendment No. 77. As I understand the situation, paragraph 4 of the new schedule is now being deleted. That paragraph gives the concession for which we asked in regard to hostels. Will the Minister in reply explain why, having said that this concession is being given to hostel accommodation, he should now seek to amend the schedule by removing that reference?
I appreciate that there is another amendment in this group of amendments—I think it is Lords Amendment No. 40, to Clause 24—in which there is a further provision relating to hostel accommodation. But that again is being amended by the Minister by a further amendment which has appeared on the Amendment Paper, and there must be some watering down of this concession.
I ask the Minister to forgive me for asking for this explanation of his amendments following his opening statement, but he will appreciate that the Opposition have been put in great difficulty by the shortness of time in which to study these matters. They are extremely intricate and, therefore, I have not readily been able to follow why he should be taking reference to hostels out of Schedule 1 but leaving it in Clause 24 in a form that he is now seeking to modify.

Miss Maynard: I find this—and I am sure other hon. Members do—a very technical and difficult matter to understand. I want to make it clear that we do not want for farm workers any more than we would ask for any other group of workers. That applies to farm workers whether they live in hostels or in any other accommodation.
There was one important admission from the Conservative Front Bench in talking about the accommodation offered in the catering industry. It was said that this accommodation was often offered at nominal rents—as, of course, tied accommodation is in agriculture—in order to attract labour to the industry. Workers in the catering industry are notoriously badly paid, as are agricultural workers. I have always found that tied accommodation at nominal rent was one way of attracting labour into a low-paid industry. We have had an admission tonight from the Conservative Front Bench in relation to another industry.

Mr. Graham Page: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) in his request for an amendment at the beginning of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1A so that the schedule shall only apply to agricultural tenancies. If I may invite the Minister to intervene and say that he accepts that, I need not speak any further.

Mr. Armstrong: I give that assurance.

Mr. Page: I am grateful to the Minister for that firm assurance. It shortens the debate considerably.
I declare an interest. Some time ago I wrote a book on the Rent Acts. The more the Government revise the Rent Acts, the more likely are the publishers to ask me for a second edition.

Mr. Mayhew: Nobody has ever asked me to write a book on the revision of the Rent Acts, and nobody is likely to do so. I wish, however, to voice a very angry protest at the mode in which this revision of one of the 13 Rent Acts to which we still have from time to time to refer is being made in Amendment No. 77.
The Rent Acts range from 1915 to 1974. The corpus of law that they constitute is properly described as monumental, but hardly stands as a monument to the limpid clarity of the legislation that we turn out from this House.
I think it nothing short of a disgrace that we are now, at this short notice, being invited to consider a new schedule that consists of 75 lines of closely drafted amendments to Clause 2, which itself sets out to modify provisions of the 196S Rent Act.
The Rent Acts to which we now have to refer constitute a kind of archaeological dig. Everyone knows that they are ranged one upon another. Some derive support from those beneath them, and others from those alongside. Therefore, everyone must know the effect on each individual slice of this sandwich cake in order to get accurate advice about the law. Nevertheless, all these acts received proper debate in this House, to the best of my knowledge. None was subjected to a guillotine, and certainly none was subjected to substantial amendments to the extent of 75 lines in a completely new schedule rearranging the definitions, brought forward in a debate that was itself subject to the guillotine, at rather less than 30 hours' notice.
This House is not just a means of sustaining a Government in office. Neither is it just a means of getting the Government out of an inconvenient spot at any given time. Its function, first and foremost, is to make law. The Minister knows in his heart of hearts that it is quite indefensible to seek to make law by

means such as this amendment. How can hon. Members give their minds satisfactorily to this degree of lawmaking—75 lines of new definitions recasting Clause 2 at such short notice? The danger is that the Government will be tempted to think that they can do this.
The Rent Acts constitute a difficult field of law, and many humble people depend on accurate advice about their real meaning. Here, once again, we are doing an in-defensible thing. We are not taking the trouble to satisfy ourselves that we know that what we are saying is right. If we fail to do our parliamentary job of making law carefully, it costs us nothing at all. We are comfortably protected from the consequences of our own negligence—we take great care to see to that. The cost falls upon those people who have the misfortune to be affected by the law that we make so heedlessly and lightly. Other people have to pay to find out the meaning and the effect of the law which Ministers are paid to make clear.
I dare say that the Minister will claim that this is a tightening-up operation, designed to meet objections expressed here and in another place. But we have not been given sufficient time to discover whether these amendments are sufficiently clearly expressed, or whether they do the job they purport to do. It is the people affected by our laws who suffer. They have to act on the best advice available to them, which later may be held by a bare majority of judges to have been wrong.
Anyone who has any knowledge of the law of landlord and tenant, and particularly of the Rent Acts, will condemn the Government's action today as an iniquitous scandal and a blatant affront to the law for which, from Clay Cross to Grunwick Laboratories, they have frequently shown contempt.

Mr. Armstrong: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) has used such exaggerated language in giving his proper attention to something which we have not had a great deal of time to consider. I was in some difficulty here because of the manuscript amendment, but I do not complain about it. I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the valuable advice he gave me on Rent Act


legislation—which is difficult—during our deliberations in Standing Committee.
When I first came to the House, having previously been a schoolmaster, I was determined that any Bill with which I was associated would be made clear to the layman. How foolish I was to think that that was a simple operation! Since then we have been in the hands of the lawyers. Rent Act legislation is complex and difficult. I can assure the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells that if we discussed the subject from now until next Wednesday the House would not be very full and I do not know that the subject would be much clearer to those of us who were present. That is why we are having a thorough review of Rent Act legislation. I do not accept the criticism that what we are seeking to do in the amendments is scandalous behaviour.
9.30 p.m.
I must tell the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that I am advised that his manuscript amendment is not strictly necessary because paragraphs 1 and 2 of the new schedule spell out the details adequately. However, since his amendment may make it little clearer to those who have to work the Act and understand it, I am prepared to accept the amendment. I am pleased to concede anything that makes legislation clearer, and for that reason I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the Minister that since he has accepted the amendment he must bear that in mind after the guillotine falls, when it is he who will have to move the amendment.

Mr. Armstrong: Thank you for that reminder, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you that I shall bear it in mind. We are thinking of little else in North-West Durham.
Let me deal with the point about hostels which is dealt with by paragraph (4) of the new schedule in Lords Amendment No. 77. The paragraph was inserted to make sure that the occupants of hostels were excluded from protection. The seven Government amendments to Amendment No. 77, remove paragraph 4 from the new schedule and transfer its effect into Clause 24.
Government Amendment No. 40 is a matter of drafting. Together, the Government amendments seek to achieve the same effect in a somewhat neater way. There is no watering down of the provisions. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) led me astray many times in the Standing Committee dealing with the reorganisation of local government. Nevertheless, I am grateful for his intervention today. He is an acknowledged expert on Rent Act legislation.
I must tell the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells that the whole effect of the Lords amendment is to apply the relevant sections of the Rent Acts to agricultural licensees or tenants not now protected by the Rent Act legislation. It does not have any effect on those already protected by the Rent Acts.
I am grateful to hon. Member for their detailed submissions on this matter. The complexity of it is one of the reasons why we are now having the full Rent Act review. I hope that what I have said will commend itself to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 disagreed to.

Schedule 2

PROTECTED OCCUPIERS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT

Lords amendment: No. 78, in page 34, leave out line 47 and insert:
182 out of the last 208 weeks, the last 50 of which have been for the current employer.

Mr. Strang: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
There have been lengthy and interesting debates both here and in another place on the question of the qualifying period of work in agriculture. In the Lords in Committee two amendments were tabled, one by the Conservative Opposition calling for two years with one employer or four years in the industry, and the other by the Liberals calling for five years in the industry, of which one year must be for the current employer.
At that point, the Conservative Opposition said that they believed that their amendment was better than that set down by the Liberals, particularly in the case


of the farm worker who, having worked in the industry for many years, had difficulties with his last employer before completing 50 weeks with him and stood to lose his housing security. This is an important point to which I shall return later.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) suggested that perhaps I had not taken sufficient interest in the Lords proceedings on these matters. I assure him that I have been extremely interested. Although I resented the wrecking amendment—Lords Amendment No. 1—I do not mean to imply that there were no interesting debates in the other place on this measure. Indeed, I made a point of witnessing the Lords debate on this issue because it seemed to me that it was likely to arouse further controversy in that place.
One matter which impressed me was the extent to which Lord Collison, a former General Secretary of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, was able to make some impact on a number of Conservative peers. The noble Lord made a number of distinguished and useful contributions to the debates derived from his long experience with the industry and his knowledge of farm workers. The telling point which he made was the position of the old farm worker who had worked for 40 or more years in the industry and who, in his sixties, had to move to another employment. I shall take an exceptional situation where perhaps his employer of long standing went bankrupt, so that the worker had to find another job. If he reached retirement age in less than 50 weeks after moving to a new farm, under the Liberal amendment, which was carried, he would have no protection whatsoever.
The purpose of this amendment is to make it harder for workers to qualify for housing security. The amendment would extend the qualifying period from two years in agriculture generally to four years in agriculture, one year of which must have been with the current employer. This means that a worker who had already fully qualified for housing security would, if he moved to another farm job and another cottage, be deprived of that security until he had completed

a further year's service with his new employer. The scope for abuse would be large, since a farmer could always sack a worker just before the qualifying period was completed. The amendment thus deprives workers of that sense of security which the Bill is designed to instil.
It is obviously fair that there should be a qualifying period of service for workers who are to benefit from the security of housing which the Bill's provisions would afford and to ensure that people do not see a brief spell of work in agriculture as a short cut to that security. We have decided on two years, taking account of consultations we have had with both sides of the industry. Two years is a reasonable period in which to prove one's bona fides. Two years is also the period suggested by the Association of District Councils, which is the body intimately concerned with the practicalities of rehousing agricultural workers.
I hope that I have explained the effect of the amendment sufficiently effectively to ensure that hon. Members who might be inclined to vote for it do so in full knowledge of its consequences. I shall not make any party capital out of this, but I know that there has been a difference of opinion—thank goodness for it—on some issues with regard to this measure between the Liberal Party in this place and the Liberal Party in the other place.
I should be very surprised if Liberal Members of this House were able to support this Liberal amendment. Indeed, I should like to think that Conservative Members might have second thoughts about supporting it. particularly as their own leader in the other place was genuinely impressed. I think, by the force of the argument which is based quite simply on the fact that it would make an absolute mockery of this issue if a worker had to have completed one year's service with his current or last employer in order to gain protection.
Therefore, I hope that Opposition Members will not feel inclined to press the amendment.

Mr. Jopling: One thing that has pleased me so far in this short debate is that we have had a tone and attitude from the Parliamentary Secretary rather different from that which we had in our


first debate today. He has adopted a more reasonable attitude, which he had throughout the Committee stage.
The amendment brings us back to the original philosophic approach to the Bill, on the question whether there should be a qualifying period at all. It is as well to acknowledge that the Government, to give them credit, have always taken the view that there should be a qualifying period of some sort. That was set out in the consultative document. We certainly welcomed it. What the Parliamentary Secretary has not referred to is the fact that it is this matter of a qualifying period that has caused more disquiet and concern in the farming industry than any other single factor; with the exception of the implications of Clause 30, to which we shall be moving next.
I observe that some groups want a qualifying period of five years. They include organisations such as the National Farmers' Union. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say that that is only to be expected. However, they include organisations such as the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers, which I think the hon. Gentleman will agree is a rather less political organisation, and the Milk Marketing Board, which I should have thought was a totally non-political organisation. All those bodies have been saying that there ought to be a five-year qualifying period.
At present the Bill says that the period should be two years. The amendment proposes a good and reasonable compromise of four years. It introduces a new element into the Bill, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said—that to qualify, a worker must have done a year's service with one employer. However one drafts the Bill, there will be some hardship somewhere. I think that we all recognise that one has to draw arbitrary lines.
9.45 p.m.
We welcome the introduction of a condition that in order to qualify a worker must have worked for a certain period with his present employer. Otherwise, if a farm worker has completed his qualifying period in agriculture, whether it be two, four or even five years, there will be a temptation for him to move, perhaps to a better house than the one he has and perhaps one close to some work he wants to take up outside agricul-

ture. It is that type of attitude which I think, all of us are intent on not assisting.
Therefore, to introduce a condition that there must be a period of service with the existing employer is good. I think that it will tend to cut out the temptation for a farm worker merely to take on a job because the house happens to be a good one and near to some non-agricultural employment which he may wish to take up.
Second, to give a longer period of qualification, increased from two years to four, would give added protection to the farming industry against a certain minority. Before the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) leaps to her feet and jumps down my throat-she can do both at the same time—to tell me that there are very few farm workers who take that attitude, let me say that I accept at once that there are few who would abuse the system in the way that I have suggested. At the same time, however, it is right for the industry to ask to be better protected against that minority. Therefore, I hope that the Government will think again about this amendment and agree to the extension of the qualifying period from two years to four.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Leader of the Opposition in another place was somewhat sympathetic to the point of view put from the Government Benches, but I think I am right in saying that in the end he voted for the amendment.
I turn now, as I have done twice before this evening, to hon. Members on the Liberal Bench. I hope that in our support for this amendment we shall have the pleasure of their company in the Lobby. This was a Liberal amendment, and there were 11 Liberal peers who came to support it. I hope that with the support of the Liberal Members, which I trust we shall have, we shall be able to press the amendment and carry it against the wishes of the Government. But, who knows?—they may have changed their minds in the meantime.

Mr. John MacGregor: Over a year ago I held many discussions with farming representatives in my constituency, including a day-long seminar. But because of the way in which


the Bill was handled, and because I was not on the Standing Committee, as I was then on another Committee considering another Bill, I have not until now been able to express any of the views held by the farming community in Norfolk on the provisions of the Bill.
I confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said about the two issues which are continuing to bother farmers. One is the qualifying period and the other is the need to put a statutory obligation on local authorities. We shall come to the latter in a moment, but I think that the two are closely connected.
One of the worries of local authorities is that if a statutory obligation is placed upon them there may be heavy demands at various times upon their housing accommodation. There is, therefore, the need to remove the non-genuine cases among people who happen to be in farm cottages at the time and to get down to the proper core. That is what the Lords amendment does. Therefore, I believe that the two matters go closely together.
I have read all the debates in the House of Lords, and it seemed to me that, although the leader of the Conservative Opposition there took note of the points made, he still stuck to his guns, regarding the amendment as important to the farming community.
I believe we all agree that this is a matter of striking the right balance—protecting local authorities from queue-jumping and from people who come into rural areas and perhaps use the clauses of the Bill in order to jump the queue into a council house, while at the same time protecting the farmer against someone coming in with no intention of working on his farm.
The Minister said that the amendment would make an absolute mockery of the Bill. That is putting it too strongly. We are simply trying to get the right balance. On the whole the four-year clause, and particularly the one-year clause, gives a more reasonable protection without in any way hampering or restricting the rights of the genuine cases among farm workers. Indeed, many farmers would like to have seen either a five-year or three-year clause, but I am sure they will be happy to settle for this compromise as being a reasonable one.
Twelve months is not a long time for any person to earn his rights under the Bill. It protects the farmer from the situation where someone comes to his farm not with any intention of working there but because it is an area to which he wishes to go or because it is better accommodation, and he works there only a month to have the protection under the Bill granted to him, while the farmer finds himself in extreme difficulty. Twelve months is not too long to earn the rights under the Bill for full protection to be applied to the farm worker.
The Minister gave one example perhaps to justify his claim that the amendment made an absolute mockery. That was an example of someone who had worked in agriculture all his life and who in the year of his retirement had moved somewhere else. That is no doubt an accurate example, but I believe that it would apply to very few cases. The question that the House must consider is whether on balance one should agree with the Minister and deal with the extreme case of the farm worker who has spent 40 years in the industry and has to move at the last minute, or whether it is right to put in a few extra protections for the farmer to deal with the equally dangerous situation of a farm worker going in with no intention of working for him in order to gain accommodation on which he has set his eye.
It seems to me that the amendment would afford a reasonable balance. It does not in any way affect the objectives or ultimate purpose of the Bill. It gives the protection that the farming community feels is necessary. I am bound to say that the misgivings and fears in the farming community about the two-year protection are still very strong. A great deal of benefit would be gained by the Minister if, even at this late stage, he accepted the amendment which the Lords carried.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Amendment No. 78 is a Liberal amendment. It gives me great pleasure to support it. The Lords have been constructive in their approach to change the qualifying period. The amendment seeks to change the qualifying period from two years to four years, with the stipulation that the last year must be in the employment of the farmer who owns the house in respect of which the worker seeks security of tenure.
The two-year period at present provided in the Bill is felt by many organisations, including the NFU and the Farmers' Union of Wales, to be too short. Many organisations have argued in favour of a period of five years, others for eight years and others for 10 years.
I am delighted that the Conservative Opposition are agreeing with the Liberals about a change and that they will support us in the Division Lobby. I was delighted to hear the views of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling).
In my view, and in the view of many others, a period of two years is too short to prevent the Bill's being used as a short cut to a council house or a stautory tenancy. Many people would be prepared to work for two years in agriculture if it meant that they could be sure of a house at the end of that period. Having established the right to a house, they could then do what they had intended to do—take a job in the nearest town. It seems simpler to have a minimum period for the industry, as the Bill provides. Unfortunately, it is too short. It gives me great pleasure to support the Lords amendment.

Mr. Esmond Bulmer: I support the argument for the longer qualifying period. Any employer considering two candidates for a job will, if he thinks the qualifying period is too short, seek to minimise the risk by choosing an older man, who is mature, whose character is formed, and whose family is established, in preference to a younger man. We are beginning to see this happening under the Employment Protection Act, which provides a much shorter qualifying period.
In the countryside we need more young people who will create families and add to the community. Many rural areas in

Division No. 414.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Buchan, Norman


Allaun, Frank
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Buchanan, Richard


Anderson, Donald
Bidwell, Sydney
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)


Archer, Peter
Bishop, E. S.
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)


Armstrong, Ernest
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Ashley, Jack
Boardman, H.
Campbell, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Canavan, Dennis


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cant, R. B.


Atkinson, Norman
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Carmichael, Neil


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Bradley, Tom
Carter, Ray


Barrett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Bates, Alf
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Clemitson, Ivor


Bean, R. E.
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

my part of the world are depopulated. I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind.

Miss Maynard: I do not know whether Conservative Members really believe that just to get a house anyone would work for two years in an industry which pays the kind of wages that agriculture does. It is ludicrous to say so. I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) that we need more young people. I said earlier that there is an aging labour force in agriculture. The way to get more young people is to pay them a decent rate, since they are among the most skilled workers in the country. The answer is not a qualifying period of four years.

Mr. Pym: I think that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) will accept, as a consequence of that statement, that it is about time this Government made sure, first, that farmers had adequate margins for their products and, second, that the taxation system enabled them to retain enough of those margins. Where on earth else does she think that money will come from?
I hope that the Minister will remember what he said about the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) half an hour ago. He said then the hon. Gentleman was marvellous—he was so sensible and practical, he came straight from the farm. The hon. Gentleman is the same man, with the same practical experience, and he thinks that a period of four years is preferable to a period of two. The Minister should therefore agree with him a second time.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 262.

Cohen, Stanley
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Coletnan, Donald
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Corbett, Robin
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cowans, Harry
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crawshaw, Richard
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cronin, John
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rooker, J. W.


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Davidson, Arthur
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kinnock, Neil
Rowlands, Ted


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lambie, David
Rymati, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamborn, Harry
Sandelson, Neville


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Selby, Harry


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dempsey, James
Lee, John
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyrts)


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dormand, J. D.
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Litterick, Tom
Strkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunn, James A.
Loyden, Eddie
Silverman, Julius


Dunnett, Jack
Luard, Evan
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Small, William


Edge, Geoff
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mabon, Dr J Dickson
Snape, Peter


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


English, Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spriggs, Leslie


Ennals, David
McElhone, Frank
Stoddart, David


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stott, Roger


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mackintosh, John P.
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Swain, Thomas


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Madden, Max
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth
Thorne, Slan (Preston South)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marquand, David
Tierney, Sydney


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Freeson, Reginald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tomlinson, John


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Torney, Tom


Garrelt, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Urwin, T. W.


George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Gilbert, Dr John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Golding, John
Mikardo, Ian
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Gould, Bryan
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Watkins, David


Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Watkinson, John


Graham, Ted
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Weetch, Ken


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moonman, Eric
Weilzman, David


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
White, James (Pollok)


Hamilton, James (Sothwell)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Whitehead, Phillip


Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland
Whitlock, William


Harper, Joseph
Newens, Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Noble, Mike
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hatton, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Heffer, Eric S.
Ovenden, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hooley, Frank
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Horam, John
Padley, Walter
Woodall, Alec


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Palmer, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Park, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Huckfield, Les
Parker, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Parry, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pendry, Tom
Mr. Frank R. White.


Hunter, Arlam
Perry, Ernest








NOES


Adley, Robert
Goodlad, Alastair
Montgomery, Fergus


Aitken, Jonathan
Gorst, John
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Alison, Michael
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morgan, Geraint


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Awdry, Daniel
Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Baker, Kenneth
Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Banks, Robert
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mudd, David


Bell, Ronald
Grist, Ian
Neave, Airey


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Grylls, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hall, Sir John
Neubert, Michael


Benyon, W.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Newton, Tony


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John


Biffen, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
Onslow, Cranley


Biggs-Davison, John
Hannam,John
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Blaker, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Page, John (Harrow West)


Body, Richard
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Havers, Sir Michael
Page, Richard (Workington)


Bottomley, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Paisley, Rev Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hayhoe, Barney
Pardoe, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Parkinson, Cecil


Bradford, Rev Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hicks, Robert
Penhaligon, David


Brittan, Leon
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hodgson, Robin
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Brotherton, Michael
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Buck, Antony
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Raison, Timothy


Bulmer, Esmond
Hurd, Douglas
Rathbone, Tim


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carlisle, Mark
James, David
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Carson, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Ridsdale, Julian


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Jessel, Toby
Rifkind, Malcolm


Channon, Paul
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinslead)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Churchill, W. S.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Cockcroft, John
Kilfedder, James
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kimball, Marcus
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Cope, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Cordle, John H.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sainsbury, Tim


Cormack, Patrick
Kitson, Sir Timothy
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Corrie, John
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Critchley, Julian
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Crowder, F. P.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shepherd, Colin


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lawson, Nigel
Silvester, Fred


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Le Marcham, Spencer
Sims, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sinclair, Sir George


Drayson, Burnaby
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lloyd, Ian
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dunlop, John
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Speed, Keith


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McCusker, H. ,
Spence, John


Elliott, Sir William
Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Emery, Peter
MacGregor, John
Sproat, Iain


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stanley, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Farr, John
Madel, David
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fell, Anthony
Marten, Neil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mates, Michael
Stokes, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maude, Angus
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Forman, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Maxwell-Hyslon, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fox, Marcus
Mayhew, Patrick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fry, Peter
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mills, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Miscampbell, Norman
Trotter, Neville


Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Moate, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Molyneaux, James
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Monro, Hector








Viggers, Peter
Warren, Kenneth
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Weatherill, Bernard
Younger, Hon George


Wakeham, John
Wells, John



Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Alan Beith and


Walters, Dennis
Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Geraint Howells.

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, further proceedings stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Energy Bill [Lords], the Industrial Common Ownership Bill and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill and the further consideration of the Public Lending Right Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Orders of the Day — QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE (MOTION)

Division List No. 411—Noes [see c. 1383–4]

Division No. 411.]
NOES



Adley, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Richard (Workington)


Aitken, Jonathan
Hawkins, Paul
Paisley, Rev Ian


Awdry, Daniel
Hodgson, Robin
Pardoe, John


Beith, A. J.
Holland, Philip
Penhaligon, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Body, Richard
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hurd, Douglas
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bradford, Rev Robert
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Britain, Leon
Jessel, Toby
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott, Nicholas


Brotherton, Michael
Kilfedder, James
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Budgen, Nick
Kimball, Marcus
Shepherd, Colin


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Shersby, Michael


Channon, Paul
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sims, Roger


Churchill, W. S.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sinclair, Sir George


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Clegg, Walter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Cockcroft, John
Lloyd, Ian
Spence, John


Cormack, Patrick
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
McCusker, H.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Macfarlane, Neil
Stokes, John


Drayson, Burnaby
MacGregor, John
Tapsell, Peter


Dunlop, John
Made!, David
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Mates, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mayhew, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fairgrieve, Russell
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fell, Anthony
Miscampbell, Norman
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moate, Roger
Wakeham, John


Fry, Peter
Monro, Hector
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Glyn, Dr Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Warren, Kenneth


Goodlad, Alastair
Morgan, Geraint
Winterton, Nicholas


Gorst, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Younger, Hon George


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mudd, David



Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Nelson. Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hampson, Dr Keith
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Mr. Clement Freud and


Hannam, Jon
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Ronald Bell.

Orders of the Day — RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL

Lords amendments again considered.

Lords amendment: No. 79 in page 35, line 33, leave out
of which a person ("the occupier") is in exclusive occupation under
and insert
in relation to which a person ("the occupier") has".

Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 11 to 18, 115, 124 and 126.

Mr. Armstrong: These amendments remove redundant wording describing the licence or tenancy held by a protected occupier under the Bill. They are drafting amendments and do not alter the sense of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 80 in page 35, line 45, leave out "to work".

Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It is a purely drafting amendment to remove unnecessary words.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 81 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 82, in page 38, line 31, leave out "under this paragraph" and insert
'made under this paragraph—

(a) may contain transitional and other supplemental and incidental provisions, and
(b)"

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It is common form for an order-making power to cover the possibility of transitional, supplemental and incidental provisions. This is a prudent policy which is worth following in relation to this power.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos.  83 and 84 disagreed to

Clause 30

DUTY OF HOUSING AUTHORITY CONCERNED

Lords amendment: No. 45, in page 24, line 3, leave out from "dwelling-house" to "are" in line 7 and insert
within three months of their receiving the application or, if an application is made for the services of a committee under section 31 of this Act, within two months of their receiving the committee's advice.
(6A) The notification shall state—

(a) if the authority".

Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment requires local authorities to notify decisions on rehousing applications within two months of receiving ADHAC advice or, if there is no ADHAC advice, within three months of the date of application.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 46, in page 24, line 10, leave out "they shall use their best endeavours to provide the" and insert
it shall be their duty to secure the provision of

Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 47.

Mr. Armstrong: We now come to that area of the Bill which, above all others, has proved controversial. These amendments have served to prolong the controversy in a way that I regard as singularly dogmatic.
The rehousing duty for local authorities proposed in the Bill as it left the House was a strong duty. It was abundantly clear that local authorities were in no doubt on this point. The replacement by Amendment No. 46 of the phrase which enjoined local authorities to "use their best endeavours", a phrase we have heard a great deal in past months, with a phrase purporting to lay on them a straightforward duty stems from the misconception that the new wording adds a legal force that was previously lacking.


It ignores the fact that the original obligation placed on local authorities unambiguously required them to do their utmost, and recognised that more than their utmost was not feasible.
If Amendment No. 46 is misconceived, its effect when taken together with Amendment No. 47 is irresponsible. I use the word "irresponsible" advisedly, because that is the very apt description used by the Association of District Councils, speaking for the housing authorities, which are to be responsible for carrying out the new duty. This is strong language from the association, but the strength of the language is warranted.
The other place has tried to remove from housing authorities a vital discretion to decide the priorities of housing allocation. Like many other hon. Members, I have been a member of a housing committee. The members of such committees have to make agonising decisions from time to time. There are no blueprints that anyone can supply that will automatically guide a housing committee that is faced with a choice of priorities. The amendment would attempt to give absolute instructions to housing authorities that have vial decisions to make. The result would be that automatic overriding priority would be given to applications from farmers that were valid under the criteria set out in Clause 29 irrespective of other claimants beyond agriculture, irrespective of the housing authority's resources and irrespective even of whether the application was urgent in agricultural terms. That would represent a totally unjustified intrusion into the responsibilities of the elected representatives who sit on local housing authorities. It would inevitably lead to distortion in that those who would suffer would be those in desperate need of rehousing.
I suspect that in their heart of hearts their Lordships realise that this place cannot possibly accept either the letter or the spirit of the amendments. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber with day-to-day experience of working on housing committees will know that the amendment is not acceptable given the relationship that we now have with local government. If they apply their minds coolly to the clause as it reached them, their Lordships should be able to see that without their amend-

ments the Bill offers to farmers provisions from which they stand to benefit a great deal. If I may say so, they stand to benefit a great deal more in many instances than is their position under the present system. I trust that the House will return the message in no uncertain terms to another place that the amendments cannot be accepted.

Mr. Pym: I agree with the Minister that this is a highly controversial matter. It is one of the most controversial aspects of the Bill. It is all the more surprising, therefore, that there was no opportunity upon Report for the House to address itself to the matter. Had it not been for the belated but welcome acceptance of the amendment that I moved this afternoon, we should not have had an opportunity to discuss it now.
The clause involves not only agriculture but local authorities. I remind the House of the attitude that I have taken all the way through. One of the reasons for my thinking that the Bill is so fundamentally wrong is that I believe it to be fundamentally wrong for agriculture that farmers should be in a position of doubt and uncertainty about the future repossession of houses that go with farms, not knowing whether the man will be rehoused so that they can engage another man. That uncertainty is totally wrong for the industry.
I have always been at the forefront of those who argue, as the Minister has done, that it is equally wrong to put an absolute commitment upon the local authority to give complete and absolute priority so that farmers' doubts can be allayed. It seems to be the design of the Bill that produces such an impossible conundrum. That is one of its greatest weaknesses. Many of us feel that it is wrong to impose an absolute priority on the local authority, yet we do not feel that to leave the Bill as it stands is acceptable from the farmer's point of view.
What the Minister said in trying to reject their Lordships' amendment increased rather than diminished my anxiety. He said that when the Bill left the House local authorities already had imposed upon them a strong and real duty. They certainly had a duty to use their best endeavours, but what does that actually mean? What does it mean to


the farmer and the farm worker in real terms? No one has yet been able to answer that question.
The Minister went on to say that, if their Lordships' amendment were accepted, that would have removed a vital discretion on the part of housing authorities in allocating houses. If that vital discretion is removed, what does the phrase "best endeavours" mean? If the Lords amendment is rejected, local authorities retain that discretion in allocating houses. That is the fear and anxiety that now affect agriculture.
I believe that five amendments to the subsection, and certainly four in relation to the clause, should now be mentioned The two amendments with which we are now dealing place a duty to secure the provision of housing for farm workers displaced from their jobs. Amendment No. 48 deals with the special circumstances that arise when an advisory committee says that the freedom of a house for another worker is of such urgency that provision should be made by the local authority within a period of three months. That surely is a reasonable obligation to impose.
Amendment No. 86 refers to temporary accommodation, and the Government have tabled an amendment that will be helpful in that respect. Finally Amendment No. 49 deals with the position where, despite the duty imposed by Amendment No. 46, authorities are unable for any reason physically to provide a house. In those circumstances farmers would be entitled with no further argument to provide a mobile home without any requirements in planning terms, and that could overcome a difficulty in relation to a farmer's business. Therefore, in that general sense one must examine these five amendments together, although I appreciate that we are now dealing with two only.
On first reading of the amendments, one would think that certainly Amendment No. 46 imposed an absolute duty and that that was the end of the matter. But what they did in another place was not as severe, as positive or as definite as that. Their Lordships allowed for the fact that it could happen, through nobody's fault, that a local authority would be unable to provide alternative accommodation physically. That is why they inserted these other amendments.
We must examine Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 in that light.
I do not regard the way in which the Bill left the House as providing adequate protection for farmers. I have acknowledged that an absolute compelling duty almost to the point of turning somebody out is an unreasonable proposition from the local authority's point of view. But as the matter has returned from another place, taking these amendments together, there is a practical alternative which would give a greater degree of reassurance to the industry that houses would become available and that other arrangements would be made, particularly in circumstances when the advisory committee recommended that that was essential from the point of view of the needs of a particular farm.
In that sense, the House would be well advised to acept all these amendments from another place. I do not accept the impression gained by the Minister in relation to the debates in another place. I believe that there was a genuine search for a new position between the unsatisfactory "best endeavours" as we now know them, and the absolute obligation that at the other end of the scale no matter what happens. Their Lordships made an effort to introduce practical and sensible amendments to achieve that objective. I hope the House will support them.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has said in this matter. The duty has been expressed in these words:
If I may turn to the question of the requirements to be met by the new duty—and I emphasise that it is the duty placed upon local authorities—this is the first time that in an Act of Parliament, as I hope it will be, a statutory duty has been put upon local authorities to rehouse any group."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5th October 1976; Vol. 374, c. 1166.]
The author of those words was saying that there should be a duty, even though it was the first time. Those are the words not of any Tory or Liberal but of Baroness Birk in stating what she conceived to be the duty, speaking on behalf of the Government. If we use her words as the test, the words which are contained in the Bill as it stands at the moment are quite inadequate. To use one's best endeavours to achieve something is not in any way an enforceable legal duty. I


know of no lawyer who would accept that it is an enforceable legal duty.
10.30 p.m.
The Minister will remember well that in Committee a number of us tried to find a way round this problem. I said then, and repeat now, that one cannot find the way round the problem, as my right hon. Friend said, just in one set of words in this particular paragraph. The right way to do it is to say that there is the duty imposed upon the local authority—Baroness Birk in another place, indeed, adverted to this—but at the same time to limit it by certain severe restrictions in the other clauses.
It seems to me that the other place—much assisted, if I may say so, by a perusal of some of the debates which took place in the Committee stage here—from its own very wide experience put forward the ideas which are contained now in its amendments. As has rightly been said, in doing so in particular it realised first of all that it would be necessary to have some machinery to decide on the appropriate cases.
I did not say before, and I do not argue now, that every single case where the person has been dispossessed provides an urgent case for the Agricultural Dwelling-house Advisory Committee, ADHAC, to provide the accommodation which is necessary for the newcomer—the person, for example, who wants to leave and go elsewhere. It is right, therefore, that that duty should obtain first of all in the cases of real urgency, where a certificate of urgency has been granted.
As I see it, that is precisely what is laid down by Amendment No. 48—that where ADHAC advises that suitable alternative accommodation ought to be provided as a matter of urgency, the authority must provide that within three months. Plainly it is right that it should provide it, surely, if it is an urgent case. Indeed, there is no one in the agricultural world—not the agricultural workers or anybody—who would not accept that that is reasonable.
Then it is said that a particular time limit should not be imposed. I will not argue that, because that really is within the province of the later amendment to which we shall be coming.
We are not asking for anything unreasonable. We are asking that notice be taken of the Lords, who have considered this matter from a practical angle, and have recommended that undue burdens should not be put on local authorities. Many hon. Members have served on local authorities, and no hon. Member would want to impose on the Association of District Councils an undue burden to provide housing which we know it will not be able to provide.
But if, as in this case, the burden is imposed for a very limited number of people who have service tenancies—namely, agricultural workers—this puts those people in a privileged position. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Miss Maynard), who has pressed this matter on behalf of her union, has introduced " Maynard's Mischief" into the Bill because she has managed to get a privileged position for a tiny minority of workers—a position which the miners, the police, local authority servants and many school caretakers cannot get.
In cases of urgency there should be a specific duty imposed on local authorities, and this is what the Lords have aimed to do. In order that it should not be too great a duty it should be limited to cases of urgency. If the local authorities fail to do this within a period of three months, they may be driven to extreme measures to find temporary accommodation. The Government gave way on an amendment to enable us to run hostels with reasonable success without their being protected by the Rent Act. This is one of the benefits of Amendment No. 77. It is equally important that some form of temporary accommodation should otherwise be provided by way of hostels or caravans.
In trying to get through this very narrow position between the fact that one does not want to impose too onerous a burden on local authorities on the one hand and the fact that one wants to help the agriculturists on the other, one is left with the unfortunate thought that this Bill should have been brought in by the Ministry of Agriculture and not by the Department of the Environment. It is really an agricultural matter. Nevertheless, faced with these


difficulties we find that the balance preserved in the other place is a sensible one, and the Government would be wise to accept the amendments.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Running through the debate on these amendments is a platitudinous approach by Conservatives towards their colleagues in another place. The House of Lords has done much deliberately to wreck a succession of Bills, and the verdict on its behaviour has been given by this House. Conservative speakers have talked today about the impartiality of the House of Lords in this matter. They claim that Members of another place have no particular axe to grind. However, I suspect that many of them have a deep and vested interest in the farming industry. I wonder how many Members of another place, who sent these amendments back to us, have actually worked as agricultural labourers and been victims of the tied cottage system. I doubt if there is one.
It is not true to say, as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) implied, that this amendment, which makes it obligatory for local authorities to provide alternative accommodation, did not get enough mileage during the Bill's passage. He should examine the Committee proceedings. The clause occupied more time than any other. Every Opposition Member spoke on it, and it was because of the time taken by Opposition Members that I and my hon. Friends made our contributions brief. It is, therefore, futile to suggest that the debate has been hurried through with insufficient chance for hon. Members to speak.
The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said, as was said so often in Committee, that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) has had her way and is trying now to ram the Bill down the throat of the House on behalf of the members of her union. Successive Governments this century, Conservative, Liberal and Labour, have passed socially progressive Bills. This subject has been argued about for years. The topic has not arisen just because an engineering constituency in Sheffield adopted as its Labour candidate a lady from the agriculture industry. I remember as a boy hearing discussion of the iniquitous position of farm labourers who at that time

could be bundled out of their dwellings overnight and their furniture dumped in the country lanes so that the farmer could secure vacant possession. It is not my hon. Friend's Bill, it is the Government's Bill. The Government are fulfilling a manifesto commitment.
Let me turn to the point about the system being made mandatory on local authorities. The Opposition have put forward some strange arguments. The Bill could lead to increased public expenditure. Most of the local authorities which will be affected by the Bill are not those with vast numbers of houses. The overwhelming majority of council houses are situated around urban centres such as Greater London, Birmingham and the metropolitan counties and districts. We are not, therefore, concerned with authorities with vast numbers of council houses.
The Opposition frequently refer to the sale of council houses. The majority of such sales take place, I suspect, not in the inner city areas but in the desirable country areas. The stock of houses concerned with the effects of the Bill is, therefore, diminishing. In addition, public spending cuts are curtailing municipal house building programmes. I suspect that authorities in rural areas have been among the first to stop building council houses because they have no crying need for them.

Mr. Benyon: We are only talking about cases in which the ADHAC decides that the agricultural need is paramount. Therefore, the number of cases would be far fewer and there would be a saving of public expenditure.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Dean: It may be that they will be the only cases which will be referred to the local authority by the ADHAC. In Committee the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said that ADHAC may make some unfair decisions. I should point out that, as farmers are part of the community in which they live, it is quite on the cards that some will be local councillors who will be appointed to the ADHAC and that they will be making recommendations. I am not concerned whether there are many or few cases. A fundamental principle is involved. As an ex-chairman of a large housing authority,


I know the awful decisions which sometimes have to be taken when deciding priorities.
If we accept the amendment, we are saying that any case recommended by the ADHAC should go to the top of the queue. We are recommending that it should be given priority over people who are seriously medically disadvantaged to whom priority should be given. My experience as chairman of one authority which had over 90,000 houses was that it could give help with immediate rehousing only to four-star cases. Those were people with medical conditions which I should not wish on anybody. They were the most tragic cases one could imagine. However we look at this situation, somebody would go to the top of the queue irrespective of the needs of others for housing.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even now, housing authorities have high priorities for key workers, whether they be industrial or agricultural?

Mr. Dean: The hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing two ways. In his earlier contribution he said just the opposite. Indeed, he implied that if a park keeper, a teacher or a school caretaker were to retire or to have his employment terminated, he would have no protection. I should like to know of any large authority with any conscience about housing which has evicted a school caretaker on his retirement.
I have experience of cases, almost on the domino system, where a school caretaker who has been living in a very desirable bungalow in the grounds of a school has reached retirement age and should move on and that has created a sequence of vacancies. I also have experience of situations where the last or the second last man in the chain has come to my surgery and said "I cannot move to my job because the man who retired is very demanding in the type of accommodation that he wants and will not move ". Most local authorities bend over backwards to ensure that a man who retires or leaves his employment goes into accommodation which is acceptable to him. That is not the legal position, but that is how it works. People are not put on the streets and told to go somewhere.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that there are many colleges of education and other such establishments not under local authority control where there is no protection.

Mr. Dean: I was not referring to that type of accommodation. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in his speech, specifically referred to school caretakers. Many such people are accommodated in local authority houses. We must deal with those who are particularly affected by this type of provision.
It will be extremely difficult to tell a local authority to rehouse a couple, for example, if the authority has only two-or three-bedroomed house available. Could it, in all justice, say "You could have a three-bedroomed house but a family lower down the road has been waiting for three or four years"—or 10 years in some areas—"and we are sorry but you will have to wait. The house is adequate to the size of your family but there is a couple that we have been instructed to rehouse"? It will not work.
When talking mainly about farm workers with small families and childless couples, we must remember that one of the biggest shortages at present—the leeway has never been made up—is in one-bedroomed and two-bedroomed accommodation. That is the present situation. We are trying to impose upon local authorities a mandatory responsibility to carry out something that would be physically impossible for them to carry out.

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman seems to be acknowledging that many local authorities will have considerable difficulties in rehousing these people, will he say what the farmer is expected to do?

Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman is standing the argument on its head. He has made his point on that. He is trying to open up the debate on the whole theme of the Bill and what it is about. We are now discussing an amendment to a clause. I prefer to relate my argument to that.
I could mention numerous cases in the argument in which it could be said "It is all right. No one can evict because we cannot find houses." However, the situation here is quite different.
If one tells a local authority that it must rehouse someone, in most cases it would be physically impossible for it to do so. I was the chairman of the national committee of the old AMC. In the main I have found that when this sort of request is made to local authorities, couched in terms of "strongest endeavours", they play the game and attempt to comply with it. No one could justifiably ask for more.
The Minister has referred to what the Association of District Councils says about the situation. That is the parent authority of those who will be most affected by the clause. It would be disastrous to try to impose upon it something that it could not possibly carry out.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: By the Bill the Government are proposing to interfere in a doctrinal fashion in the rights of the owner of property, over both its use and occupation and its disposition. It does not lie within the mouths of Labour Members to say that after the Government have interfered in this way, the resulting unfairness and injustice must lie where it falls. Unless the amendment is adopted, it will lie with the owners of the property alone. Because of their particular position and our need for a thriving agricultural industry, that is manifestly unfair.
The mischief will be created by the Government. Therefore, it is perfectly logical and fair for the Government to say that government at lower level, local government, must attend to the unfairnesses and injustices that might result from the application of this policy.
This is a doctrinaire policy. If it is justified—I do not say that all doctrinaire policies are unjustified—it must follow that, it having been justified at Government level, at local government level we are entitled to say "Local government will have to clear up the mess that we have created because of this application of our view of these matters."
That point is completely overlooked by Labour Members. They are assuming that the unfairnesses and injustices that will result from the Bill's interference with owners' rights must rest with owners and that all the hardship, nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience and loss must be suffered by them. It is proposed that we should

impose this burden upon them, and yet it is within our power to say that there is an authority, the local authority, that can mitigate this nuisance and annoyance.
I can illustrate the utter unwisdom of both the Bill and the Government's approach to this amendment by reference to a case in my constituency. Although my constituency is in Greater London, I am fortunate in that it contains a good number of farms since it lies just north of the Kent boundary, on the periphery of London. We are experiencing the problems to which the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) referred. Being on the periphery of an urban area, we have problems of accommodation, but they are not problems of accommodating agricultural workers.
Some five or six years ago, however, a local owner of property in my constituency was allowed to convert his dairy into living accommodation, subject to the planning condition imposed by the local authority—one may say that it was rightly and properly imposed at that time—that the property when converted to residential use should be occupied by an agricultural worker. At that time this was possible. The gentleman concerned, being wealthy enough to employ a certain number of staff, was able to engage someone who occupied the cottage and worked on the property as an agricultural worker.
The owner died two years ago, the family suffered financially as a consequence, and the widow was unable to maintain the property in the state in which it had hitherto been kept. As a result, she was not able to afford an agricultural worker any longer. Her son moved into the residential accommodation to which I have referred, and he happened to be a local councillor whose job was in London. The local authority was then obliged to serve an enforcement notice upon him saying that he was in occupation of a property restricted to occupation by agricultural workers, so that his occupation of it was illegal.
The son, as I have said, was a local councillor. What could he do about it?—nothing, so it transpired. There was an appeal against the enforcement notice, which was turned down by the Minister. I raised the matter on the Adjournment in the House. The response was always "No"—the property was reserved for an


agricultural worker and no one else could occupy it, even though the owner of the property could no longer afford to pay for an agricultural worker to live on the property. The outcome was that that person with his wife and two children had to move out, and the premises have been empty for the past two years, because there is no agricultural worker locally who wishes to occupy them.
That seems to me to be an excellent illustration of the nonsense which we create in tenancies, whether agricultural tenancies or tenancies involving just the ordinary relations between landlord and tenant. In the long run, interference of this kind leads to greater and greater confusion, I see the Minister for Housing and Construction shaking his head, but, unfortunately, that is the situation, and if only he and others would come to grips with it and start to make the whole range of legislation governing housing—

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): That sounds as though it should be a contribution to a debate on planning, because I imagine that that is the background to the hon. Gentleman's problem, not the kind of legislation now before the House.

Mr. Stanbrook: I accept that, but it is a question of approach to these problems. The same attitude governs the approach to planning as governs the approach to housing generally and the problem of agricultural tenancies. If the Government insist upon intervening in this way by legislation imposing a rigid system upon the allocation and control of housing and its occupation, they will run up against these difficulties. Whether the rigid control be imposed through planning or through a Bill of this kind, the same difficulties will arise. It is up to the Minister to do something about it. Let him cease being so doctrinaire and think of ways by which he can help people rather than hinder them in this doctrinaire fashion.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: I am opposed to the Lords amendment, which lays a mandatory duty on local authorities. I do not think I have always been of that view. At a certain time in my life I would have been in favour of laying mandatory duties on local authorities. That was when I

lived in Pickhill, where I knew the conditions in which people lived in tied cottages and the difficulties which attended people in getting decent homes. There was no sewerage scheme there, and a very limited amount of council house building.
If hon. Members opposite are saying that people in rural areas are in difficulties, I well appreciate that, but I would also point out that many of those areas are controlled not by the Labour Party but by the Conservative Party and farmers have held the reins of power. As things are at present, they are free to apply their own rules, and if they prefer to house people in this category they can give them a high priority, perhaps the highest.
If there is a lack of council dwellings in many rural areas, it is because the local authorities have not built houses over the years. I think of the situation at Pickhill where, when farm workers moved into the limited council accommodation and had security of tenure, they smartly got jobs elsewhere and worked for the county council, the railway or on local airfields. So the people who controlled the local authority said " We are not going to do that if they are going to move out of tied cottages into these houses built by the council and leave the industry".
People said to me at the time "Why not stand for the local council?" I did. I set the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson) on his way to becoming a Member of Parliament. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) in his place because he acted as agent for the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks.

Mr. Mills: A good agent.

Mr. Ellis: Yes. They shot me away home. I got very few votes.
The point I am making is that for that village there was the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, a farmer and he was on the council, while the councillor for the next village was a farmer also. That was Sinderby. The hon. Member for Westmorland was a councillor for Sinderby and the councillor for the next village of Howe was also a farmer, Mr. Greensit. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) was on the council as well, but she was in a small minority.
In such circumstances, if we are being realistic in discussing the problem, there


are various rural areas of the country where certainly no one could plead that farmers did not have a real say in housing policy, and there are huge areas where one could say that they controlled that policy. An hon. Member opposite intervened in a speech by one of my hon. Friends to ask whether this would produce more council houses. I would say that farmers and the Conservative Party have for years been in a position in the rural areas to do something about conditions there. My main plank was that there should be basic amenities like a sewerage system.

Mr. Michael Mates: That is why the hon. Gentleman lost.

Mr. Ellis: That is right. I hope they got the sanitation system, because without that they could not get housing. The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates), who intervened so glibly, is right.
I have no time for the amendment. If I have changed my view about laying mandatory powers on local authorities if is not for that reason. My experience at that time would have led me to do something about it and give them advice. But the people wanted the discussion to be about policies, and that is what took place. I am a local government man. I have served on other authorities as well.

Mr. Jopling: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will temporarily turn deaf. The hon. Gentleman has made one or two remarks that are not quite accurate. During his first election campaign I was not the agent of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson). At the time the hon. Gentleman ran for the county council, and was defeated by 1,100 votes to 90. It was not against my hon. Friend, and I was not the agent.
The other point that I wanted to make clear was with regard to sewerage works. I must put the record straight. The hon. Gentleman will recall that when I was a member of that council I was instrumental in getting a sewerage scheme at Pickhill, in the village in which I lived and in all the other villages that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that honour is satisfied on both sides.

Mr. Ellis: We are not departing so far out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since this relates to the provision of housing. I am glad that the hon. Member for Westmorland was later converted, perhaps because of some of the work that I had done earlier.
It is pious nonsense to talk about the lack of council houses in those areas when hon. Gentlemen opposite, and farmers, had the power to do something about it. The hon. Member for Westmorland smiles, but I am sure he would agree that there is much cogency in that argument.
I certainly accept that local authorities should have power in housing, and that they must make up their minds about priorities. It would be wrong for us to intercede in that realm. Equally I believe that it is up to the people in those areas to do something about it, if they so wish. Perhaps our debate will give local authorities a stimulus to improve housing conditions in some of those areas, because it is the rural areas that have the worst conditions.
I would also refer to the availability of accommodation—something that no one has mentioned so far. Everyone concedes that over the years there has been a vast depletion in the number of people engaged on the land. In my own area, it is possible to go into village after village and see empty houses which had formerly been tied cottages. Although there has been an outflow from the land, there are still workers in those areas in tied cottages.
But some of the shortages which have been referred to are not real. Some of the accommodation is old and has been flogged off to people who can pay exorbitant sums to buy a cottage in the countryside and who may have to spend a lot of money on those cottages.

Mr. Mates: Good working people.

Mr. Ellis: That may be, but it is not part of my argument. This amendment deals with people working in agriculture, and the argument is that the farmer will be disadvantaged if he does not have a house to give to a worker. I am trying to put the matter into perspective from my experience. Many of these places are terrible; they have rising damp and lack the basic amenities.


The hon. Member for Peterfield talks glibly about these matters, but riding through all this problem is the conviction—it would be better if Conservative Members had some experience of it—that it is wrong to tie the roof over a man's head to the circumstances of his job. It creates resentment—

Mr. Mates: What about the miners?

Mr. Ellis: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I will let him do so. That red herring has been raised three times already.
These men have been dispossessed and their families put on the streets. I hope that the Bill will stop all that.

Mr. MacGregor: Like my hon. Friends, I regard this as a critical amendment. If it is not agreed to, the working of the Bill will have to be kept under review and perhaps a future Government will have to strengthen it along these lines.
I recognise the difficulties. It is interesting that the Association of District Councils should take the line the Minister described. But the Government must keep a proper balance between the concern of the local authorities and the legitimate fears of the farming community. Some of the speeches of Labour Members have done nothing to assuage those fears.
I found it difficult at times to follow what the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) was talking about. At one point he seemed to suggest that it was unfair to impose this burden on local authorities because many could not carry it out. In that case, the fears of the farming community are well founded. Then, the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that there would not be too much difficulty in some cases, in which case the thing could be pushed a little further; this statutory obligation would meet the fears of the farming community.
On Third Reading in another place, the noble Lord who led for the Opposition, who comes from the area which I represent and therefore is concerned with the same sort of fears, summed this up when he said that the words "best endeavours" had "scared the life" out of the agricultural community. He said that once a local authority had said that,

after using its "best endeavours", it had been unable to rehouse someone, a vital house would be lost to a farmer for years.
My own Norfolk NFU says that it is still "totally dissatisfied" with this aspect of the Bill. Of course the proposed solutions are not ideal, but there will be a range of alternatives under later amendments open to local authorities. All we are doing is trying to make the Bill practical. If not ideal, it would at least be better than when it originally left this House.
It was a bit rich for the Minister to criticise the proposed statutory obligation on the ground that it meant that one section of the community would be given "overriding priority". Whose fault is that? This must be the fault of the Government who have introduced this legislation. They ought to recognise that and face up to the responsibilities inherent in their own legislation.
11.15 p.m.
I have been in touch with my two local district councils to ask how they feel they will be able to meet this "best endeavours" requirement. Their view—as councils which have worked locally with the NFU and the farm workers' union—is that they think they may be able to meet all the demands made in the Bill. But they stress the uncertainty and say that it is difficult to forecast the Bill's effect on numbers because it will create a new situation. They hope that the impact of the legislation will not be too great and that they will be able to satisfy the needs of the farming community in almost every case.
The crucial point is that they cannot give an absolute guarantee, and that is what is worrying farmers. This is not giving farmers confidence. All we are doing in the amendment is pushing local authorities a little further while giving farmers the real assurance they seek. That is a very strong argument in favour of this group of amendments.
Of course, there will be difficulties in rural areas. Hon. Members opposite have made play of the fact that this is because some local authorities in rural areas have not provided sufficient council housing. But in a very scattered rural area it is not an economic proposition to


have groups of council houses everywhere one might want them to be.
I hope that the Government and local authorities will recognise that there will be considerable need for flexibility in considering where alternative accommodation should be provided. In very big, scattered rural areas, it is not always possible to provide an ideal alternative in an ideal place.
If the Government are to impose this new obligation upon local authorities, they must provide the finance. It is typical of this Government to lay more obligations on others without providing the necessary resources. We suspect that the Secretary of State for the Environment, in the Rate Support Grant announcement next Monday, will make clear that there will be even fewer resources, in real terms, for local authorities next year.
We are talking about rural areas, and it has been the practice of this Government during the past two years to reduce the grant to rural areas in favour of others. The Government are imposing obligations upon local authorities but reducing the finance they provide to enable the authorities to carry them out. In this case it is even worse because not only are the Government refusing to provide extra resources but they are going further and asking the private sector to shoulder the burden if the local authorities cannot. The Government are squirming out of obligations that they ought to face.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: There is a contradiction in that argument, because the hon. Gentleman is assuming that the housing situation is universal. The point about rural areas could be accepted by this side of the House, but the Opposition say that less should be spent on housing in the cities—where there are tremendous housing problems and where even priority medical cases cannot be housed—but that more should be spent on housing by rural local authorities. Can we be told exactly what the Opposition think about housing policy?

Mr. MacGregor: I am under pressure to be brief, but the point I am trying to make is that where the Government impose new obligations—whether "best endeavours" or. statutory. obligations—it

is fair to give the local authorities or industries upon which they are imposed the resources to carry them out. Unless this group of amendments is passed, most farmers will not build any more houses—costs have spiralled enough already—and they will also begin to get rid of their surplus housing. If farmers were given the reassurance contained in the amendment, that consequence would not necessarily follow.

Miss Maynard: The speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) sounded like double dutch to me. For months now, we have been listening to the Opposition calling for public expenditure cuts. They cannot have it both ways by complaining when, as a result of the cuts, fewer houses are built in country areas.
We have been getting the old argument from the agricultural industry tonight. The industry has always asked for special consideration, but the Government are saying that they are not giving it that special consideration on this occasion.
The imposition of a mandatory duty on local authorities would be to tell them that they must face an open-ended commitment. Every time they rehoused a farm worker, his cottage could be relet and the whole procedure would start again. No one should expect local authorities to accept that situation, and hon. Members should remember that such an open-ended commitment would be at the expense of other people on the waiting lists.
I am opposed to dictating to local authorities in this way. I was once a member of a local authority, and I think that councils are best equipped to decide how their houses should be let.
I was perturbed by the remarks of hon. Members opposite on the need for flexibility and how farm workers might have to accept places which were not ideal. I hope that they are not suggesting that workers could be shunted off to a house miles away. The farm workers are not prepared to accept that sort of flexibility. They have had to put up with that sort of attitude for far too long.
Hon. Members have asked what will happen if a local authority is unable to meet a request for housing. If skilled farm workers were paid what they are worth, they would be able to buy their


own homes. Some hon. Members opposite have asked where the money is to come from. I remind them that in the 1950s, when the industry was raking in the money, the wonderful wages board was giving farm workers rises of 4, 6 and 8 bob a week. So do not let any hon. Member pretend that the money is not there for the industry to pay the rate for the job.
Listening to farmers and hon. Members opposite talking about burdens and inconveniences is rather like listening to the white man complaining what a burden coloured people are to him. Farmers can get rid of the burden if they pay the rate for the job.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I shall be brief because of the pressure of time. I wish that hon. Members opposite would agree among themselves their reasons for rejecting the amendment.
Hon. Members on the Government Back Benches seem to be under the impression that the phrase "best endeavours" means something less than a duty. They seem to have been sorely misled by their Front Bench, because in opening the debate the Minister said that he understood "best endeavours" to mean a strong duty and a clear duty. If the Minister finds himself constrained to use the word "duty" to describe the meaning of "best endeavours", "duty" should appear in the statute.
Support for the view that the Minister appears to be adopting is to be found in subsection (9):
The authority shall not be obliged to provide suitable alternative accommodation if at the time when the accommodation becomes available".
That assumes that there is something in the clause which obliges the authority to provide alternative accommodation—in other words, a duty to do so. If "best endeavours" did not import that duty, subsection (9) would not have been phrased in that way. Therefore, what the Minister is telling us is that "best endeavours" means a duty to provide alternative accommodation. Anybody who has been speaking to the issue that it provides less than a duty has been misled.
If it is the Government's case that it means a duty to provide alternative

secure accommodation, there does not seem to be the slightest reason why the amendment is being opposed. If that is the Minister's case, he should say so and explain why all this time has been wasted, not only here but in Committee. Why is he allowing his hon. Friends to retain the impression that there is a completely different meaning of "best endeavours" to that which clearly the courts will consider when they come to interpret those words?

Mr. Wm. Ross: I intervene briefly in the debate for the first time because it appears to me that the amendment is the one on which the whole Bill turns. Its acceptance would remove most of the objections of the farming community to the Bill.
There are objections to the amendment because it is said that it would create problems for the local authorities. I cannot accept that, because in Northern Ireland, where the housing authorities have problems beside which any problem experienced on this side of the Irish Sea pales into insignificance, the authorities are capable of dealing with the matter and have dealt with many thousands of such cases over the past year. Intimidation, arson and murder have forced many people out of their homes, not only in city areas but in rural areas. They go on an emergency list and are normally rehoused, some within 24 hours. If that can be done in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, I can see no reason why the same sort of work cannot be done in the peaceful and settled conditions of the rest of the United Kingdom.
To say that councils and housing authorities cannot do it is to insult their ability, for it is being said that they are incapable of doing the job they were elected to do. If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) wants to see farm workers paid better, she should accept responsibility when people such as I in future demand a realignment of the green pound.

Mr. Geraint Howells: As one who has supported the Bill, I am a little worried about the local authorities' duty to rehouse. The Bill as it stands is totally inadequate in the crucial area of the local authorities' obligation to rehouse agricultural tenants who are no longer working on the land. In merely saying that the


local authorities must
use their best endeavours to provide alternative accommodation,
it leaves a large loophole for unsympathetic local authorities not to be rehouse former agricultural tenants. To me, the term is very vague.
Many local authorities will house ex-farm workers in any case, but the Bill should have such force as to put a legal obligation on all authorities to provide a council house for an agricultural worker if he is turned out of his tied cottage. As I said on Second Reading, the clause provides no method of appeal for the applicant to challenge the local authority's decision. If the Bill is to have any real effect, the clause must be strengthened to place on local authorities a statutory responsibility to provide accommodation if the local agricultural dwelling-house advisory committee decides that there is a proven case for rehousing on the ground of efficient agriculture.
11.30 p.m.
When I spoke on a previous occasion I emphasised that
Local authorities should have a statutory obligation to rehouse anyone in the agricultural industry leaving a licensed or otherwise tied cottage."—[Official Report, 4th May 1976; Vol. 910, c. 1124.]
I am sure that many right hon. and hon, Members will agree that if the Bill is to succeed special housing finance should be made available to housing authorities to eanble them to implement an urgent building programme to deal with increased housing needs created by these proposals.

Mr. Rossi: The ground that has been covered this evening is somewhat familiar for those who served in Committee. Therefore, I shall not go over the ground at great length. Unfortunately, just as the matter was left in an unsatisfactory and unresolved state at the end of our deliberations in Committee, so it has been left this evening by the Minister. I do not think that we are much further forward.
The Minister, in inviting the House to reject the amendment, has put forward the proposition that "best endeavours" is the highest obligation that can be put upon local authorities short of an absolute duty. He then says that it would be irresponsible and calls in aid the advisory committees, to impose an absolute duty upon local authorities because they would

not have the means to discharge it. He says that "best endeavours" is the best way of using words that will arrive at the balance that he is trying to achieve.
The dilemma is caused through the Government bringing forward the Bill in the first place. They have created an impossible position for farmers, who are faced with cottages that they cannot get back. In the interests of efficient agriculture the Government concede that it is necessary to make alternative provision, and they have required the local authorities to make that provision. The local authorities say that they cannot make that provision. The advisory committees go further and say that it is irresponsible to impose an absolute duty upon them. They are saying that the do not want any duty at all. That is the message that came through to us loud and clear in Committee.
The Committees have gone further because they are in a worse position than when we were considering the matter in Committee as a result of the changes that have taken place in Government policy. Since Committee there has been a severe cutback in the housing programme. There will be 30,000 fewer new houses built next year. The Government have cut back resources to local authorities. The Government say that such resources as there are must be concentrated on areas of urban stress. If the resources are to be concentrated on those areas, where are the local authorities in the rural areas to get the money to make the provision that is necessary if the Act is to operate in the way that the Minister suggests? Money has been severely slashed back even in the area of local government advances for mortgage purposes. Therefore, local authorities will be in tremendous difficulty. It is doubted whether they will be able to accept any obligation under the Act and whether the Act will work in the way that the Minister suggests.
Let us examine the wording that the Minister says is so important—namely, "best endeavours"—as distinct from the words used by their Lordships in the amendment. That is the point that was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). The Government will recall that we examined this matter in some detail in Committee, when we found that there were only six decided cases in the courts on the meaning of the wording "best endeavours". I do not


propose to take the House through those six cases, but the dilemma that local authorites and farmers alike will be in when trying to decide what "best endeavours" means is indicated by two cases, one which was decided in 1911—namely, the Sheffield District Railway Company v. the Great Central Railway Company. The court decided in that case that "best endeavours" meant leaving no stone unturned. That is an extremely high duty indeed.
More recently, in 1952, in Terrell's case, the court decided that "best endeavours" means "an obligation to do what is reasonable in all the circumstances." That is a far cry from leaving no stone unturned. Therefore, when, in future, farmers and local authorities look at the Act and say "What are the local authorities required to do; what is their obligation? ", are they to take into account Sheffield's case or Terrell's case—or do they go to law and bring more money into the pockets of the legal profession, until, eventually, the House of Lords, in its judicial capacity, decides what the words mean?
It is most unsatisfactory that uncertainty of that kind should be created, simply because the Government are seeking a way out of a dilemma that they have created for themselves, seeking to compromise the uncompromisable—the conflict between the interests of agriculture and the difficulties that local authorities will have in discharging any obligation that the Government may give them without the resources to go with those obligations. Certainly, local authorities would be prepared to undertake any duty that this House imposed upon them, provided that the House also made available the resources. It is in that that the signal failure of the Government lies.
Their Lordships' wording is not uncertain to the extent that the hon. Member's wording is uncertain, because the wording that their Lordships follow is the wording of Section 39 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which states that
it shall be the duty of the relevant authority to secure
that alternative accommodation is provided. It is the duty of the authority. That has been judicially decided also, because, in Hendy's case, which we also discussed in Committee, the Master of

the Rolls said that this imposes on the local authority a duty to do its best; that and no more. He also said that a local authority had an obligation to do what is reasonable in the circumstances. What the Minister is saying is that an absolute duty is no more than the kind of duty that he told the Committee, and this evening told the House, he is seeking to impose upon local authorities; namely, a duty to do what is reasonable and practical in the circumstances.
The Minister is using the wrong form of words, and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends and Members of the minority parties to join us in opposing the Government in this case, because all they are succeeding in doing is to create such an area of uncertainty that neither the farming industry nor the local authorities will be satisfied with, or will derive any comfort from, the situation. Trouble will be caused all round, or, if not trouble, certainly litigation.

Mr. Armstrong: I should like to reply very briefly. There are two misconceptions that I want to deal with. The first is in relation to the attitude of the Opposition to local authorities. I must say that I was surprised and shocked tonight to hear their condemnation of local authorities, to the effect that they will evade their obligation under the Bill, because in their correspondence with hon. Members on the Government Benches here and in Committee local authorities have made it abundantly clear that they accept the obligation. Yet time after time Opposition speakers have suggested that district councils will not take the obligation seriously and will not rehouse workers.
The other misconception is that to give security of tenure to farm workers will cause much more movement in and out of cottages. I cannot see how it can be argued that to give farm workers more security of tenure will cause more movement.
I accept what was said about the farmers and their relationship with the workers. It is a very small minority of whom hon. Members have expressed themselves as being ashamed. Relationships are good. But we are anxious to give farm workers the same kind of security of tenure as most people in the country have been able to take for


granted for many years. We are not seeking to down the industry in any way.
I say at this Dispatch Box without fear of contradiction that I want farming to be attractive to young folk. I think that the relationship established over the years, where conditions of service are related to occupation of a dwelling-house, has reacted against the industry. I have talked to a great number of enlightened farmers who believe that the new system will work. But I am bound to say, as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, that to impose not a general duty but a specific and compelling duty on local authorities to rehouse, whatever the priorities of the housing committee, is really not on.
We all recognise that no local authorities will ever have surplus houses waiting for somebody to occupy them, and that it would be quite wrong to pass legislation giving one section of the community an advantage over all others. If rationing is necessary, housing authorities must have discretion to decide priorities according to individual and local circumstances.
We are dealing here with a great human problem, and I was impressed that

Division No. 415.]
AYES
[11.44 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Allaun, Frank
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
English, Michael


Anderson, Donald
Clemitson, Ivor
Ennals, David


Archer, Peter
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cohen, Stanley
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Ashley, Jack
Coleman, Donald
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Ashton, Joe
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Conlan, Bernard
Faulds, Andrew


Atkinson, Norman
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon L.


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Corbett, Robin
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cowans, Harry
Flannery, Martin


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bates, Alf
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Ford, Ben


Bean, R. E.
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Forrester, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Crawshaw, Richard
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cronin, John
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Bidwell, Sydney
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Freeson, Reginald


Bishop, E. S.
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cryer, Bob
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Boardman, H.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
George, Bruce


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whilteh)
Gilbert, Dr John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Davidson, Arthur
Ginsburg, David


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Golding, John


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Gould, Bryan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Graham, Ted


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Deakins, Eric
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Buchan, Norman
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Grocott, Bruce


Buchanan, Richard
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Doig, Peter
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Dormand, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Campbell, Ian
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Canavan, Dennis
Dunn, James A.
Hatton, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Dunnett, Jack
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Carlisle, Mark
Eadie, Alex
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Carmichael, Nell
Edge, Geoff
Heffer, Eric S.


Carter, Ray
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hooley, Frank

in the debates in the House of Lords almost every one of the Opposition speakers who forced through these amendments began by saying that this was a problem which ought to be tackled, and that there were great human tragedies and so on because of the system as it now operates.

Trying to amend the system brings great difficulty—I acknowledge that—but to say that because it is difficult to get the right balance we should not have the Bill at all seems to me to be a denial of the job that we are supposed to be doing in this Parliament. Certainly we cannot brush aside the evictions which have taken place, or brush aside the number of times that people have had to be taken to court. Where there is inhumanity, something has to be done. The Government believe that they have the right balance, and that to accept the Lords amendments would destroy that balance. I therefore hope that the House will agree with the proposition I have made.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 260.

Horam, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Huckfield, Les
Meacher, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mendelson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mikardo, Ian
Small, William


Hunter, Adam
Millant, Rt Hon Bruce
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Snape, Peter


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Spearing, Nigel


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Moonman, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stallard, A. W.


Janner, Greville
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stoddart, David


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stott, Roger


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moyle, Roland
Strang, Gavin


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Newens, Stanley
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


John, Brynmor
Noble, Mike
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Oakes, Gordon
Swain, Thomas


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ogden, Eric
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Orbach, Maurice
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Kaufman, Gerald
Ovenden, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Kelley, Richard
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thorne, Slan (Preston South)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Padley, Walter
Tierney, Sydney


Kinnock, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Tomlinson, John


Lambie, David
Park, George
Torney, Tom


Lamborn, Harry
Parker, John
Urwin, T. W.


Lamond, James
Parry, Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Pavitt, Laurie
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Leadbitter, Ted
Pendry, Tom
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lee, John
Perry, Ernest
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Watkins, David


Lipton, Marcus
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Watkinson, John


Litterick, Tom
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Weetch, Ken


Lomas, Kenneth
Price, William (Rugby)
Weitzman, David


Loyden. Eddie
Radice, Giles
Well beloved, James


Luard, Evan
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Richardson, Miss Jo
White, James (Pollok)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mabon, Dr J Dickson
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Whitlock, William


McCartney, Hugh
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


McDonald, Dr Oonegh
Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


McEihone, Frank
Roderick, Careen
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


McGuire. Michael (Ince)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mackintosh, John P.
Rooker, J. W.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Maclennan, Robert
Roper, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rose, Paul B.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Woodall, Alec


Madden, Max
Rowland, Ted
Woof, Robert


Magee, Bryan
Ryman, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Sandelson, Neville
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mahon, Simon
Sedgemore, Brian



Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Selby, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marks, Kenneth
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Marquand, David
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Mr. James Tinn


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)







NOES



Adley, Robert
Brotherton, Michael
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Alison, Michael
Bryan, Sir Paul
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Buck, Antony
Drayson, Burnaby


Awdry, Daniel
Budgen, Nick
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Baker, Kenneth
Bulmer, Esmond
Dunlop, John


Banks, Robert
Burden, F. A.
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Beith, A. J.
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Bell, Ronald
Carlisle, Mark
Elliott, Sir William


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Carson, John
Emery, Peter


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Channon, Paul
Eyre, Reginald


Benyon, W.
Churchill, W. S.
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bitten, John
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Farr, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifle)
Fell, Anthony


Blaker, Peter
Clegg, Walter
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Body, Richard
Cockcroft, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bottomley, Peter
Cope, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cordle, John H.
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Cormack, Patrick
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Costain, A. P.
Fox, Marcus


Brittan, Leon
Critchley, Julian
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Crowder, F. P.
Freud, Clement







Fry, Peter
Loveridge, John
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McCrindle, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McCusker, H.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maclarlane, Neil
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Glyn, Dr Alan
MacGregor, John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Madel, David
Sainsbury, Tim


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marten, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mates, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Gray, Hamish
Mather. Carol
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Grieve, Percy
Maude, Angus
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Maudllng, Rt Hon Reginald
Shepherd, Colin


Grist, Ian
Mawby, Ray
Shersby, Michael


Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Silvester, Fred


Hall, Sir John
Mayhew, Patrick
Sims, Roger


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Peter
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hannam, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Speed, Keith


Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger
Spence, John


Havers, Sir Michael
Molyneaux, James
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector
Sproat, Iain


Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Heseltine, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stanley, John


Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hodgson, Robin
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stokes, John


Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Tapsell, Peter


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mudd, David
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Newton, Tony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hurd, Douglas
Nott, John
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Onslow, Cranley
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Townaend, Cyril D.


James, David
Page, John (Harrow West)
Trotter, Neville


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Jessel, Toby
Page, Richard (Workington)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pardoe, John
Viggers, Peter


Jopling, Michael
Pattle, Geoffrey
Wakeham, John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Penhaligon, David
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walters, Dennis


Kilfedder, James
Pink, R. Bonner
Warren, Kenneth


Kimball, Marcus
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Weatherill, Bernard


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Price, David (Eastlelgh)
Wells, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Raison, Timothy
Winterton, Nicholas


Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Lamont, Norman
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Younger, Hon George


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)



Lawrence, Ivan
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lawson, Nigel
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Cecil Parkinson


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)




Lloyd, Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 47 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 48, in page 24, line 16, at end insert—
(7A) Where the committee advises under subsection (3) above that the authority ought to provide suitable alternative accommodation as a matter of urgency, the authority shall

Division No. 416.]
AYES
[11.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bishop, E. S.


Allaun, Frank
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Boardman, H.


Archer, Peter
Bates, Alf
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Armstrong, Ernest
Bean, R. E.
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur


Ashley, Jack
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Bradley, Tom


Atkinson, Norman
Bidwell, Sydney
Bray, Dr Jeremy

provide such accommodation within three months from the date of that advice,"

Motion made, and Question put. That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 262.

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Orbach, Maurice


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hatton, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Ovenden, John


Buchan, Norman
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Buchanan, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Padley, Walter


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hooley, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Horam, John
Park, George


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Parker, John


Campbell, Ian
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Parry, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
Huckfleld, Les
Pavitt, Laurie


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Pendry, Tom


Carmlchael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Perry, Ernest


Carter, Ray
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Clemitson, Ivor
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Radice, Giles


Cohen, Stanley
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Greville
Richardson, Miss Jo


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Corbett, Robin
John, Brynmor
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cowans, Harry
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cronin, John
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rooker, J. W.


Cropland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rose, Paul B.


Cryer, Bob
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Kinnock, Neil
Ryman, John


Davidson, Arthur
Lambie, David
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamborn, Harry
Sedgemore, Brian


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lamond, James
Selby, Harry


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Latham. Arthur (Paddington)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon. Robert (Achton-u-Lyne)


Deakins, Eric
Lee, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lipton. Marcus
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dempsey, James
Litterick, Tom
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Dormand, J. D.
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Luard, Evan
Small, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Snape, Peter


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr J Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Edge, Geoff
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stallard, A. W.


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McElhone, Frank
Stoddart, David


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McGuire. Michael (Ince)
Stott, Roger


English, Michael
MacKenzie, Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Ennals, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill. Hon Dr Shirley


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Swain, Thomas


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Madden, Max
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Faulds, Andrew
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Flannery, Martin
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Tierney, Sydney


Ford, Ben
Marquand, David
Tinn, James


Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tomlinson, John


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrecking)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Torney, Tom


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Urwin, T. W.


Freeson, Reginald
Maynard, Miss Joan
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Meacher, Michael
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


George, Bruce
Mendelson, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Gilbert, Dr John
Mikardo. Ian
Wilkins, David


Ginsburg, David
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Watkinson, John


Golding, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Weetch, Ken


Gould, Bryan
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Weitzman, David


Gourlay, Harry
Moonman. Eric
Well beloved, James


Graham, Ted
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
White, James (Pollok)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Whitehead, Phillip


Grocott, Bruce
Moyle, Roland
Whitlock, William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Hardy, Peter
Noble, Mike
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Harper, Joseph
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huston)







Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Wool, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Woodall, Alec
Young, David (Bolton E)
Mr. Joseph Ashton





NOES



Adley, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mills, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Glyn, Dr Alan
Miscampbell, Norman


Alison, Michael
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Goodlad, Alastair
Moate, Roger


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gorst, John
Molyneaux, James


Awdry, Daniel
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Monro, Hector


Baker, Kenneth
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Montgomery, Fergus


Banks, Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Beith, A. J.
Gray, Hamish
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bell, Ronald
Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Grist, Ian
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Benyon, W.
Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Biffen, John
Hall, Sir John
Mudd, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nelson, Anthony


Body, Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hannam, John
Newton, Tony


Bottomley, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Nott, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow. Cranley


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Havers, Sir Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow West)


Brittan, Leon
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Page, Richard (Workington)


Brotherton, Michael
Heseltine, Michael
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hicks, Robert
Pardoe, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hodgson, Robin
Pattie, Geoffrey


Buck, Antony
Holland, Philip
Penhaligon, David


Budgen, Nick
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Bulmer, Esmond
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Peyton. Rt Hon John


Burden, F. A.
Howell. David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Powell, Rt Hon J Enoch


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Carson, John
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hurd, Douglas
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Channon, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Raison, Timothy


Churchill, W. S.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rathbono, Tim


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
James, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jenkin.Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Cockcroft, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jopling, Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Cope, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cordle, John H.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Cormack, Patrick
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carrie, John 
Kilfedder, James
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Critchley, Julian
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Crowder, F. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Knox, David
Royle, Sir Anthony


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Langford-Holt, Sir John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Drayson, Burnaby
Latham, Michael (Mellon)
Scott, Nicholas


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dunlop, John
Lawson, Nigel
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Colin


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shersby, Michael


Elliott, Sir William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Silvester, Fred


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian
Sims, Roger


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fairgrieve, Russell
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Farr, John
McCusker, H.
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fell, Anthony
Macfarlane, Neil
Speed, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John
Spence, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sproat, Iain


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Forman, Nigel
Madel, David
Stanley, John


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Marten, Neil
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fox, Marcus
Males, Michael
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Maude, Angus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Freud, Clement
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stokes, John


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman







Temple-Morris, Peter
Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Wakeham, John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Welder, David (Clitheroe)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Younger, Hon George


Townsend, Cyril D.
Walters, Dennis



Trotter, Neville
Warren, Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tugendhat, Christopher
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Anthony Berry and


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wells, John
Mr. Carol Mather


Vaughen, Dr Gerard
Whitelaw. Rt Hon William

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after six hours after the commencement of proceedings of Lords amendments, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [8th November], designated Lords Amendment No. 51 as appearing to him to involve questions of Privilege, and then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions specified in that Order.

Mr. Speaker: I am now required to put the Question on any amendment moved by the Government to a Lords amendment.

Clause 24

TENANT SHARING ACCOMMODATION WITH PERSONS OTHER THAN LANDLORD

Lords amendment: No. 40, in page 19, line 44, at end insert—
(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to accommodation which would, apart from this subsection, be deemed to be a dwelling-house subject to a protected occupancy if—
(a) the accommodation consists of only one room, and
(b) at the time when the tenancy was granted, not less than three other rooms in the same building were occupied as residential accommodation by separate occupiers, or were available for such occupation, on such terms as are mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above."

Amendment made to the proposed Lords amendment, in paragraph (b), leave out from first "were" to "on" and insert
'let, or were available for letting, as residential accommodation to separate tenants '. —[Mr. Bates.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 77, in page 34, line 38, at end insert new Schedule 1A—

SCHEDULE 1A

MEANING OF "RELEVANT LICENCE" AND "RELEVANT TENANCY"

1. In this Act "relevant licence" means any licence for the exclusive occupation of a dwelling-house which—
(a) if it were a tenancy, and
(b) if the provisions of the Rent Act 1968 mentioned in paragraph 3 and 4 below were modified as mentioned in those paragraphs,

would be a protected tenancy for the purposes of that Act.

Relevant tenancy

2. In this Act "relevant tenancy" means any tenancy of a dwelling-house which—

(a) is not a protected tenancy for the purposes of the Rent Act 1968, but
(b) would be such a tenancy if the provisions of that Act mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 below were modified as mentioned in those paragraphs,

other than a tenancy to which Part I or Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies and a tenancy of an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948.

Supplemental

3. —(1) Section 2 of the Rent Act 1968 (tenancies excepted from the definition of "protected tenancy") is modified as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) omit paragraph (a) (tenancy at a low rent) and paragraph (d) (tenancy of a dwelling-house comprised in any agricultural holding etc.).

(3) For paragraph (b) of subsection (1) (tenancy of a dwelling-house bona fide let at a rent which includes payments in respect of board or attendance) substitute the following paragraph—
(b) it is a bona fide term of the tenancy that the landlord provides the tenant with board or attendance".

(4) For subsection (3) (payments in respect of attendance to form a substantial part of the whole rent) substitute the following subsection—
(3) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that meals provided in the course of a person's employment in agriculture do not constitute board for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above; and a term that the landlord provides the tenant with attendance shall not be taken to be a bona fide term for those purposes unless, having regard to its value to the tenant, the attendance is substantial.

4. —(1) Section 102 of the Rent Act 1968 (tenant sharing accommodation with persons other than landlord) is modified as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) (separate accommodation deemed to be dwelling-house let on or subject to protected or statutory tenancy) immediately before the words "the separate accommodation", in the last place where they occur, insert the words "then, subject to subsection (1A) below" and for the words "the following provisions of this section" substitute the words "subsections (2) to (7) below".

(3) After subsection (1) insert the following subsection—
(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to accommodation which


would, apart from this subsection, be deemed to be a dwelling-house subject to a protected tenancy if—

(a) the accommodation consists of only one room, and
(b) at the time when the tenancy was granted, not less than three other rooms in the same building were occupied as residential accommodation by separate occupiers, or were available for such occupation, on such terms as are mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above."

5. The other provisions of the Rent Act 1968 which are relevant for the purposes of the above definitions, and which are therefore also applied by this Schedule, include—

section 1 (definition of "protected tenancy");
section 4 (no protected or statutory tenancy where landlord's interest belongs to Crown);
section 5 (no protected or statutory tenancy where landlord's interest belongs to local authority, etc.);
section 5A (no protected tenancy in certain cases where landlord's interest belongs to resident landlord);
section 6 (rateable value and appropriate day);
section 103 (certain sub-lettings not to exclude any part of sub-lessons premises from protection)."

Amendment made to the proposed Lords amendment, in paragraph 1, leave out
'for the exclusive occupation of a dwelling house'

and insert
'under which a person has the exclusive occupation of a dwelling-house as a separate dwelling and'. —[Mr. Bates.]

Mr. Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you of my manuscript amendment to this Lords amendment?

Mr. Speaker: We shall come to that in due course.

Amendments made to the proposed Lords amendment: In paragraph 1(b), leave out from 'if' to end of line 11 and insert:
section 2 of the Rent Act 1968 (tenancies excepted from the definition of "protected tenancy") were modified as mentioned in paragraph 3 below'.

In paragraph 2, leave out 'of a dwelling-house' and insert:
'under which a dwelling-house is let as a separate dwelling and'.

In paragraph 2(b), leave out from 'if' to end of sub-paragraph and insert:
'section 2 of that Act were modified as mentioned in paragraph 3 below'.

In paragraph 3(1), leave out from beginning to 'as' and insert:
The modifications of section 2 of the Rent Act 1968 are'.

Leave out paragraph 4.

In paragraph 5, leave out from "section 103" to end of sentence, beginning to end of line 81. —[Mr. Bates.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 8

CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 121, in page 61, line 17, at end insert—
27A. In section 122(8) of the Housing Act 1974 (duty to inform tenant of assignment of landlord's interest) after the words" Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 "insert the words" statutory tenancy within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976".

Amendment made to the proposed Lords amendment, after second 'words', insert 'and a'. —[Mr. Bates.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The guillotine Order now provides that I shall put forthwith the Question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that the House should disagree with the Lords in a Lords amendment.
As the House knows from its experience the other night, the strict interpretation of those words is that the motions to disagree should be moved and the Questions put on them one by one. That interpretation which I followed the other evening seems to have caused some concern and I have had representations from both sides of the House that the House would be willing to accept the moving together of consecutive sequences of motions to disagree provided that there is no wish in any quarter to divide on any of them.

Schedule 3

GROUNDS FOR POSSESSION OF DWELLING HOUSE SUBJECT TO PROTECTED OCCUPANCY OR STATUTORY TENANCY

Lords Amendment No. 86, disagreed to.

Amendments made to the Bill in lieu thereof: In page 40, line 45, at end insert—
'4. If the accommodation offered is available for a limited period only, the housing authority's offer or notice under paragraph 1 above must contain an assurance that other accommodation—

(a) the availability of which is not so limited,
(b) which appears to them to be suitable, and
(c) which fulfils the conditions in paragraph 3 above,
will be offered to the tenant as soon as practicable'.

In page 60, line 42, at end insert—
'4. If the accommodation offered is available for a limited period only, the housing authority's offer or notice under paragraph I above must contain an assurance that other accommodation—

(a) the availability of which is not so limited,
(b) which appears to them to be suitable, and
(c) which fulfils the conditions in paragraph 3 above,
will be offered to the tenant as soon as practicable.'. —[Mr. Bates.]

Division No. 417.]
AYES
[12.19 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Conlan, Bernard
Forrester, John


Allaun, Frank
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Anderson, Donald
Corbett, Robin
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Archer, Peter
Cowans, Harry
Freeson, Reginald


Armstrong, Ernest
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Ashley, Jack
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Crawshaw, Richard
George, Bruce


Atkinson, Norman
Cronin, John
Gilbert, Dr John


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Ginsburg, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Golding, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cryer, Bob
Gould, Bryan


Bates, Alf
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Gourlay, Harry


Bean, R. E.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, Arthur
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Grocott, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hardy, Peter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Harper, Joseph


Boardman, H.
Deakins, Eric
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dempsey, James
Hatton, Frank


Bradley, Tom
Doig, Peter
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dormand, J. D.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dunn, James A.
Horam, John


Buchan, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Buchanan, Richard
Eadie, Alex
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Edge, Geoff
Huckfield, Les


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Ian
English, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Canavan, Dennis
Ennals, David
Hunter, Adam


Cant, R. B.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Carter, Ray
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Faulds, Andrew
Janner, Greville


Clemitson, Ivor
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Cohen, Stanley
Flannery, Martin
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Coleman, Donald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
John, Brynmor


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ford, Ben
Johnson, James (Hull West)

Clause 30

DUTY OF HOUSING AUTHORITY CONCERNED

Lords amendment: No. 49, in page 24, line 20, at end insert—
8A) Where an agriculture dwelling-house advisory committee advises that in the interests of efficient agriculture there is urgent need for the provision of suitable alternative accommodation, and the authority has been unable to provide such accommodation within three months from the date of the advice, the applicant shall have the right to use land in his occupation as a site for a caravan for agricultural worker without any requirement for a site licence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, and without planning permission, until such time as suitable alternative accommodation is provided by the local authority.")

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, That this House does disagree with the Lords in the said amendment: —

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 261.

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Moyle, Roland
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Newens, Stanley
Spriggs, Leslie


Kaufman, Gerald
Noble, Mike
Stallard, A. W.


Kelley, Richard
Oakes, Gordon
Stoddart, David


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ogden, Eric
Stott, Roger


Kinnock, Neil
O'Halloran, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Lambie, David
Orbach, Maurice
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Lamborn, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lamond, James
Ovenden, John
Swain, Thomas


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Leadbitler, Ted
Padley, Walter
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lee, John
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Park, George
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Lipton, Marcus
Parker, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Litterick, Tom
Parry, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lomas, Kenneth
Pavitt, Laurie
Tierney, Sydney


Loyden. Eddie
Pendry, Tom
Tinn, James


Luard, Evan
Perry, Ernest
Tomlinson, John


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Torney, Tom


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Urwin, T. W.


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McCartney, Hugh
Price, William (Rugby)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Radice, Giles
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McElhone, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Watkins, David


MacKenzie, Gregor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkinson, John


Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Weetch, Ken


Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Weitzman, David


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wellbeloved, James


McNamara, Kevin
Roderick, Caerwyn
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Madden, Max
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
White, James (Pollok)


Magee, Bryan
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Rooker, J. W.
Whitlock, William


Mahon, Simon
Roper, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rose, Paul B.
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Marquand, David
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ryman, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Marshall. Jim (Leicester S)
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson. William (Coventry SE)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Selby, Harry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Meacher, Michael
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Woodall, Alec


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Woof, Robert


Mendelson, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mikardo, Ian
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)



Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Miller. Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Joseph Ashton and


Moonman, Eric
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Ted Graham.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Small, William





NOES


Adley, Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Farr, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, Mark
Fell, Anthony


Alison, Michael
Carson, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Channon, Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Awdry, Daniel
Churchill, W. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Kenneth
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Robert
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Beith, A. J.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fox, Marcus


Bell, Ronald
Clegg, Walter
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Cockcroft, John
Freud, Clement


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fry, Peter


Benyon, W.
Cope, John
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cordie, John H.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Biffen, John
Cormack, Patrick
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Biggs-Davison, John
Corrie, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Blaker, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Body, Richard
Critchley, Julian
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Crowder, F. P.
Goodlad, Alastair


Bottomley, Peter
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Gorst, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brittan, Leon
Drayson, Burnaby
Gray, Hamish


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Grieve, Percy


Brotherton, Michael
Dunlop, John
Grist, Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Grylls, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hall, Sir John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Elliott, Sir William
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Buck, Antony
Emery, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Budgen, Nick
Eyre, Reginald
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bulmer, Esmond
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hannam, John


Burden, F. A.
Fairgrieve, Russell
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss







Hastings, Stephen
Maude, Angus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Havers, Sir Michael
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Hawkins, Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Royle, Sir Anthony


Hayhoe, Barney
Mayhew, Patrick
Sainsbury, Tim


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Hicks, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hodgson, Robin
Moate, Roger
Shepherd, Colin


Holland, Philip
Molyneaux, James
Shersby, Michael


Hordern, Peter
Monro, Hector
Sims, Roger


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Montgomery, Fergus
Sinclair, Sir George


Howell, David (Guildford)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morgan, Geraint
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hurt, John (Bromley)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Speed, Keith


Hurd, Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Spence, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Mudd, David
Sproat, Iain


James, David
Neave, Airey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Nelson, Anthony
Stanley, John


Jessel, Toby
Neubert, Michael
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Newton, Tony
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Nott, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Jopling Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Stokes, John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Tapsell, Peter


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, John (Harrow West)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Teddy Cathcart)


Kilfedder, James
Page, Richard (Workington)
Tebbit, Norman


Kimball, Marcus
Paisley, Rev Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pardoe, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Parkinson, Cecil
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pattie, Geoffrey
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Knox, David
Penhaligon, David
Townsend, Cyril D.


Lamont, Norman
Percival, Ian
Trotter, Neville


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Tugendhat, Christopher


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Pink, R. Bonner
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lawrence, Ivan
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Lawson, Nigel
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Viggers, Peter


Le Marchant, Spencer
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wakeham, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lloyd, Ian
Raison, Timothy
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Loveridge, John
Rathbone, Tim
Walters, Dennis


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Warren, Kenneth


McCrindle, Robert
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard


McCusker, H.
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wells, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


MacGregor, John
Ridsdale, Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Younger, Hon George


Madel, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Marten, Neil
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mates, Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Jim Lester and


Mather, Carol
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Mr. Fred Silvester.

Question accordingly agreed to.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that there are no Divisions required on the remaining motions to disagree with Lords amendments. With the permission of the House, I shall read out the title of each amendment and put them together.

Lords Amendments Nos. 88, 53 to 57, 59 to 61, 72, 74, 118 and 129 disagreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I am now required to put the Question in respect of the amendment which I have designated as involving privilege.

Lords Amendment No. 51 agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privilege, I shall see that the correct entry is made in the Journal.
I am now required to put forthwith the Question that the House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining amendments.

Lords Amendments Nos. 10 to 39, 41 to 44, 50, 52, 58, 62 to 71, 73, 75, 76, 85, 87, 89 to 117, 119, 120 and 122 to 128 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question,
Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments. —[Mr. Armstrong.]

put forthwith pursuant to the order [10th November] and agreed to.

Motion made and Question proposed, That Mr. Ernest Armstrong, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Francis Pym, Mr. Hugh Rossi, Mr. Gavin Strang be members of the Committee. —[Mr. Armstrong.]

Amendment proposed, after "Mr. Gavin Strang" insert "Mr. Wm. Ross"

Question put forthwith, pursuant to the order [10th November], That the amendment be made:—

Division No. 418.]
AYES
[12.35 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mills, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Miscampbell, Norman


Alison, Michael
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Moale, Roger


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Goodlad, Alastair
Molyneaux, James


Awdfy, Daniel
Gorst, John
Monfo, Hector


Baker, Kenneth
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Montgomery, Fergus


Banks, Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Beith, A. J.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bell, Ronald
Gray, Hamish
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Benyon, W.
Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hall, Sir John
Neave, Airey


Biffen, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nelson, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neubert, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Tony


Body, Richard
Hannam, John
Nott, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Onslow, Cranley


Bottomley, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Havers, Sir Michael
Page, John (Harrow West)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Richard (Workington)


Brittan, Leon
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Heseltine, Michael
Pardoe, John


Brotherton, Michael
Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hodgson, Robin
Penhaligon, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Buck, Antony
Hordern, Peter
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Budgen, Nick
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Bulmer, Esmond
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Burden, F. A.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Carson, John
Hurd, Douglas
Raison, Timothy


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rathbone, Tim


Channon, Paul
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Churchill, W. S.
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Ridsdale, Julian


Clegg, Walter
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Cockcroft, John
Jopling Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Cope, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cordle, John H.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cormack, Patrick
Kilfedder, James
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Corrie, John
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Costain, A. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Critchley, Julian
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Royle, Sir Anthony


Crowder, F. P.
Knox, David
Sainsbury, Tim


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lamont, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Drayson, Burnaby
Lawson, Nigel
Shepherd, Colin


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Le Merchant, Spencer
Shersby, Michael


Dunlop, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Silvester, Fred


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sims, Roger


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lloyd, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George


Elliott, Sir William
Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McCusker, H.
Spence, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Farr, John
MacGregor, John
Sproat, Iain


Fell, Anthony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stanley, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fietcher-Cooke, Charles
Madel, David
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Forman, Nigel
Marten, Nell
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mates, Michael
Stokes, John


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Maude, Angus
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Freud, Clement
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mayhew, Patrick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret



Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 282.

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Wakeham, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Townsend, Cyril D.
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Trotter, Neville
Walters, Dennis
Younger, Hon George


Tugendhat, Christopher
Warren, Kenneth



van Straubenzee, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wells, John
Mr. Stephen Ross and


Viggers, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Mr. Cyril Smith.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Allaun, Frank
English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Anderson, Donald
Ennals, David
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Archer, Peter
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Hugh


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Ashley, Jack
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McElhone, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Faulds, Andrew
MacKenzie, Gregor


Atkinson, Norman
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mackintosh, John P.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Flannery, Martin
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Barnetl, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McNamara, Kevin


Bates, Alf
Ford, Ben
Madden, Max


Bean, R. E.
Forrester, John
Magee, Bryan


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mahon, Simon


Bidwell, Sydney
Freeson, Reginald
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bishop, E. S.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marks, Kenneth


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marquand, David


Boardman, H.
George, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Gilbert, Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Golding, John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Bradley, Tom
Gould, Bryan
Meacher, Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Graham, Ted
Mendelson, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Buchanan, Richard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hardy, Peter
Moonman, Eric


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton &amp; P)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Campbell, Ian
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Canavan, Dennis
Hatton, Frank
Moyle, Roland


Cant, R. B.
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Newens, Stanley


Carmichael, Neil
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Noble, Mike


Carter, Ray
Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Clemitson, Ivor
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Orbach, Maurice


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cohen, Stanley
Huckfield, Les
Ovenden, John


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Padley, Walter


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hunter, Adam
Park, George


Corbett, Robin
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Parker, John


Cowans, Harry
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Parry, Robert


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Pavitt, Laurie


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Pendry, Tom


Crawshaw, Richard
Janner, Greville
Perry, Ernest


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Phipps, Dr Colin


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cryer, Bob
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Radice, Giles


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kelley, Richard
Robinson, Geoffrey


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kinnock, Nell
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lambie, David
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Dempsey, James
Lamborn, Harry
Rooker, J. W.


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Roper, John


Dormand, J. D.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rose, Paul B.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce '
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lee, John
Rowlands, Ted


Dunn, James A.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Ryman, John


Dunnett, Jack
Lipton, Marcus
Sandelson, Neville


Eadle, Alex
Litterick, Tom
Sedgemore, Brian


Edge, Geoff
Lomas, Kenneth
Selby, Harry


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Loyden, Eddie
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)



Luard, Evan
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)







Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Whitehead, Phillip


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Whitlock, William


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Tierney, Sydney
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Silverman, Julius
Tinn, James
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Skinner, Dennis
Tomlinson, John
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Small, William
Torroey, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Snape, Peter
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Spearing, Nigel
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Spriggs, Leslie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woodall, Alec


Stallard, A. W.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Woof, Robert


Stott, Roger
Watkins, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Strang, Gavin
Watkinson, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Weetch, Ken



Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Weitzman, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Swain, Thomas
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. David Stoddart and


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
White, James (Pollok)

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question,
That three be the quorum.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question,
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
put forthwith, pursuant to the Order 10th November, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ENERGY BILL [Lords]

Lords amendment to Commons amendment considered.

Schedule 4

REPEALS AND SAVINGS

The Lords have agreed to the first amendment made by the Commons in page 25, line 26, at end insert:


"S.I. 1976/1204
The Paraffin (Maximum Retail Prices) Order 1976"


with the following amendment: in line 3, at end insert,


"S.I. 1976/1840
The Paraffin (Maximum Retail Prices (Amendment) Order 1976".

Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL COMMON OWNERSHIP BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

GRANTS AND LOANS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 19, leave out from "enterprises" to end of subsection.

12.49 a.m.

Mr. David Watkins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of the amendment is to remove any specific designation in the composition of the membership of the relevant body which is to be constituted to encourage common ownership and co-operative enterprises.
The composition of the relevant body was a matter of extensive debate both in this House and in the other place. I sense that the House is anxious to come to a decision on this, therefore I shall be brief. I stress that the relevant body ought to be widely representative and that it could not be so without trade union members within its membership. It could not be widely representative without trade union members, any more than it could be representative without the membership of persons experienced in common ownership and co-operative enterprises. Indeed, the two very much overlap.
I hope, in the light of what I have said, that when the time comes the Secretary of State will give careful consideration to the composition of any body which seeks to be recognised as the relevant body as designated in the Bill.
I have already referred to the fact that extensive debate has taken place both in this House and in the House of Lords in relation to the subject matter of the amendment. The amendment results from extensive consultations which have taken place in this House and in the other House. This is an agreed amendment which is acceptable to myself and to my co-sponsors. I recommend it to the House.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I certainly think that the House would be wise to accept what the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) has said, and to accept the wording of the amendment, which, as he said, was worked out as an agreed compromise in the other place.
The arguments have been well rehearsed many times before. It is quite late enough for us to have good reason not to go over them again in any detail. It is sufficient to say that many of us felt in both Houses that it was unwise that one particular group of persons should be specified in the law as being those who had to be present on this body.
Certainly it seemed odd to us that if the body were to be required to have representatives of trade unions on it—and not just trade unionists but representatives of trade unions—there should not also be a requirement that it should have on it 600 persons who were experienced in the running of common ownership firms.
We are well satisfied with the amendment as it is proposed, and I hope that there will be no attempt on the part of anybody on the Opposition Benches to argue against it, or, least of all, to vote against it, which would prejudice the further progress of the Bill at this stage.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): In this atmosphere of mutual accord and congratulation I shall delay the House only a moment or so and would not wish to disturb the even tenor of the hon. Member's remarks.
In accepting the amendment we in no way accepted the arguments put forward by the Opposition in this House and in another place. We feel that if the relevant body is to function efficiently, and workpeople's interests are to be properly represented, it should include a repre-

sentative of the trade unions among its membership.
However, my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), who moved the acceptance so well, saw no reason to delay the Bill further by opposing the amendment, and since we very much want to see this important Private Member's Bill reach the statute book, the Government accept the amendment.
In assessing the suitability of the relevant body for the purposes of the Bill, the Secretary of State will no doubt have full regard to whether the membership of the body includes a representative of trade unions. Having said that, I hope that the House will accept the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2

COMMON OWNERSHIP ENTERPRISES AND CO-OPERATIVE ENTERPRISES

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 37, after "description)" insert
which do not discriminate between persons by reference to politics or religion".

Mr. David Watkins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment seeks to meet a difficult point which had proved rather baffling to those involved in the Bill during the earlier stages. It has resulted from extensive consultation in both Houses and also with the Industrial Common Ownership movement. I record my thanks to ICOM for its invaluable help and advice given at all stages of the Bill, right from the initial drafting. I thank particularly the Chairman of ICOM, Mr. Roger Sawtell, and the organiser, Ms Manuela Sykes.
A feeling was shared by all hon. Members that common ownership enterprises should be given the widest freedom in deciding their own rules of membership within the lines laid down in the legal definition, which is one of the fundamental principles of the Bill. For this reason in page 2, line 37, the phrase
other factors of any description
was included. The difficulty of including that phrase and not restricting them in any way was that we found that the position was open to abuse, and it made


it possible for common ownership enterprises to apply restrictive qualifications on membership.
The amendment makes illegal discrimination on political or religious grounds. There is no reference to racial or sexual discrimination, because that was unnecessary, as that position is already covered in existing legislation. This is an agreed amendment resulting from widespread consultation. Its purpose is to preserve freedom without licence. Accordingly, I recommend it to the House.

1 a.m.

Mr. Tebbit: It would be idle to pretend that I personally care for this aspect of the Bill. I care very little more for it now than I did when it left this House originally. My concern, expressed then and now, was not about the power given in this part of the Bill being abused by those who would use the measure. I think that is most unlikely. My worry throughout was that as this place is obsessed—rightly perhaps—with precedent, we should think very carefully before we legislate in any circumstances.
To include the power to exclude persons by factors of any description seems to me to be very bad legislation. Some time in the future some Parliamentary Secretary pushing through another piece of legislation about a quite different matter could find these words used in his legislation and could quote the precedent of this Bill, passed with the approval of both Houses. So we were extremely unhappy about the matter. I am still unhappy about the compromise amendment. I accept that it has been extremely difficult to find a suitable turn of phrase. I would have preferred the expression
or other factors of any description
to be removed from the Bill.
I do not want to stop the Bill becoming law at this stage by attempting to insist that what I regard as an unsatisfactory wording should be removed.
To stop the Bill now would be to rob the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) of the well-justified triumph of seeing the Bill reach the statute book. It has not had an easy passage and at times I think that the hon. Member almost

despaired of it. There have been moments when some of us thought that perhaps it was being assisted by the Government—not unfairly, but certainly in a way which could have been extended to other Bills of similar merit.
For all that, the Bill looks as though it will reach the statute book. I believe that it will do good by encouraging the concept of men and women owning and controlling their own commercial enterprises, and that must be good for the economy and for society. I congratulate the hon. Member and I wish the Bill and the common ownership movement well.

Mr. Cryer: I should like the House to support the amendment. I can assure the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that it is very difficult to legislate and to produce a form of words which allows a degree of flexibility while excluding the possibility of that flexibility being used in an undesirable way. This may not be the perfect formulation of words, but at least an attempt has been made to retain a degree of flexibility while providing adequate safeguards to prevent abuse. Hopefully we think that the amendment will work. It represents an improvement in the Bill and we are looking forward to seeing the Bill on the statute book.
I shall take this last opportunity to offer the congratulations of the Government to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins). I hope that the Bill will go a little way towards achieving an objective in which we in the Labour Party have always believed. Working people have a great deal more to contribute to the ownership, means, distribution and exchange of production than has been the case in our society in many respects.
We believe that there is a well of talent and good will among working people that can in large part be met by a different form of organisation from that which governs our society now. We hope that industrial common ownership and co-operative enterprises will draw on this well of creative ability and good will in working people and that the Bill will be a small step towards an ever-fast developing movement.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DIRECTORATE OF OVERSEAS SURVEYS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the Order Paper tonight are the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill and the Public Lending Right Bill. It would appear that the Public Lending Right Bill is not being moved by the Government. Can the procedures of the House be considered to be satisfactory when legislation which—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I think it improper for a point of order of this sort to be raised during Adjournment time, and it is taking that time.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I cannot take points of order during the Adjournment time. The Bill has not been moved, and therefore I cannot hear points of order about that Bill.

1.5 a.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: This debate for which I have asked concerns the move to Glasgow of 360 trained cartographers and other experts from their purpose-built headquarters at Tolworth in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher). I should say at the outset that a good many of my hon. Friends have said that they would have wished to take part in the debate if there had been time, but, unfortunately, we are confined to half an hour.
It is, I think, the unanimous opinion of all those who work at Tolworth that they do not want to make this move, but they do not take that view for personal or family reasons. Their real fear is for the future of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys itself and whether it will survive. The move is all part of the 1,000-post slice which the Ministry of Overseas Development must move from the London area up to Glasgow, upon the orders of the Government. The object of the exercise, according to the Hardman Report, is to take more jobs from the Londcn area to areas of high unemploy-

ment, and also to take advantage of the lower cost of office space in those areas outside London. In this case neither of those objectives is fulfilled.
The job of the members of the staff of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys is as follows. They play a small but important part in the aid programme to the Third World. When countries of the Third World are planning the development of resources, such development can be held up entirely through a lack of medium-scale maps. There is, therefore, a spin-off here in that trade is apt to follow the map rather than the flag. Immediately one has a map of an area, all sorts of other experts are needed to give advice. The service is therefore of importance to this country.
I believe that the staff who work at Tolworth do it virtually as a vocation. They are not particularly highly paid, and there is very little chance of promotion. All they want to do is perform their job efficiently and get on with it in peace. Their present location at Tolworth is convenient for purposes of liaison. To begin with, they are near the Ministry, which is an advantage. They are reasonably near their printers at Southampton, the Ordnance Survey printers. They are near the Land Resources Division of the Ministry of Overseas Development, which is shortly to move to Basingstoke, and they are not far from the Hydrographic Survey office at Taunton, as well as being close to the mapping and charting establishment at Feltham.
The equipment used is extremely sensitive and sophisticated and there will be great difficulty in moving this equipment up to Scoltand. It will be an expensive process—about £30,000 for the most sophisticated equipment, the stereo plotters—and experts will be required to come from abroad to relocate these machines and calibrate them. Moreover, it will entail the demolition of buildings in order to get them out. There is also a highly organised library of about 2 million photographs and 100,000 maps.
The Hardman criteria for the movement of Government work out of London were really concerned with clerical grades, the principal idea being that there would be jobs in the clerical grades. Hardman did not concern himself with the more expert people in the Government service he saw the gain in respect of


clerical staff. But among the staff at Tolworth the clerical grades account for only 12 per cent., and there are 88 per cent. of specialists or senior adiministrators. Therefore, the proposed move does not really fall within the criteria.
In addition to this, it is expected that only five new trainees a year will be taken on in the new location. That is the total increase in jobs, and it will cost some £8,000 over four years to train cartographers who at present are recruited nationally from all over the country simply because of the difficulty of finding these people in one location.
Therefore, one wonders how this training will take place. Possibly 100 people will not find themselves able to move and will have to be replaced. How are these people to be trained? Where will they come from? Will the Directorate be split in order to perform this task? These questions have not been answered.
Then there is the question of the costs It has been estimated—I think that this was in a ministerial reply—that the capital cost of the move will be £2½ million. Perhaps the Minister will say whether the overall cost is far short of £5 million, which seems to me to be a very large sum of money to spend for no gain in any direction at all, either in jobs in an area of high employment or in increased efficiency.
Then there are the costs of the severe loss in mapping production which the period of the move will entail, before, during and after the move, and the loss in contracts. It is expected that this will take five years to make up. Then one must count the cost in human terms in the dislocation from homes, families and so on. The ultimate cost is likely to be very great. It is no exaggeration to say that it could mean the destruction of the DOS through loss of output and loss of trained staff.
Set in the context of the present economic crisis and the inevitable cuts in public expenditure, this proposal seems to be bureaucracy gone mad. If there were a political advantage of some sort, one could understand it. But there is no political advantage because there is likely to be no increase in jobs in the Glasgow area. In fact, the families of the people moving up there, working wives and

working teenage children, will be requiring and demanding jobs.
I am not blaming the Minister. I do not envy him in his task. However, he has a very good case to take to the Cabinet, and let us hope that common sense prevails.

1.13 a.m.

Sir Nigel Fisher: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) for allowing me some of his time.
The Directorate of Overseas Surveys is situated in my constituency and most of its home-based staff of 320 people are my constituents. I have met two deputations of them—I also discussed the matter some time ago with the then Parliamentary Secretary—and I am very much impressed with the arguments they advanced, as I believe the Minister has been impressed, although I do not want to put words into his mouth.
I have a file of 116 letters on this issue from constituents—115 of them against the move, and one, from a Scotsman, in favour of the move.
I understand the general Government policy of dispersal, but this really is an exceptional case and policy should never be so rigid that it cannot make exceptions where they are justified.
As my hon. Friend has said, this is a specialist unit, 88 per cent. of the staff being specialists recruited nationally who could not be replaced by unemployed people in Glasgow without a four-year specialist training course at a cost of about £8,000 each. At least 100 of the present staff, I would think, will have to go to Glasgow, whether they like it or not, in order to train the new recruits and to do whatever work it is possible to do, although I should have thought, as my hon. Friend indicated, that the map-making side of things will suffer and that that aspect of our aid programme will suffer by the move.
If to avoid that disadvantage the Ministry were able to persuade a larger number of the present staff to go to Glasgow, very little new employment would be created in the Glasgow area and there would be no benefit to anyone.
The expense of the move is not confined to the training of new staff. Moving


a specialist unit of this kind is not just a question of desks and files. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is difficult and costly to move specialist high precision equipment.
The accommodation provided at Tolworth is purpose-built. Similar accommodation would presumably have to be built again at some expense in the Glasgow area. The present premises would no doubt revert to the local authority which would have to convert them back to ordinary office use.
I understand that, for up to three years, the Tolworth staff would be eligible for travelling expenses home at the weekends —a further cost of £4,000 or £5,000 a week for 100 people. It is incredible that, at a time when the Government are or should be making drastic cuts in public expenditure, an expensive move of this kind should even be considered.
But these are the financial costs. But I am even more concerned with the human cost involved in this disruption of the home and family life of so many of my constituents. They are not just cogs in a machine.
The consequences of this move in human terms should also count very much in the scales against it. Many of these people have been at Tolworth for 20 years or more. All their friends are there. Their wives and children may be working to supplement the family income. If so—I know of many cases where it is—far from creating employment opportunities in the Glasgow area, extra people from the South—wives and children—may be looking for work which does not exist.
One of my constituents, recently married, faces the move to Glasgow while his wife, employed by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, faces a move to Cumbria. That small family will be totally disrupted. If these specialist-trained people refuse to move, they will have to find less skilled work in the Surbiton area with a corresponding fall in the family income at a period of high inflation.
All in all, this move will cost the taxpayer considerable sums of money with virtually no benefit to anyone—certainly not very much benefit to Glasgow—and

with maximum loss to the happiness and personal lives of my constituents.
I am not blaming the Minister. I know where his sympathies lie, because I know his character. I have known him for a long time. I can only hope that the debate may serve to give him some aid in the representations which I understand he may be making to his Cabinet colleagues to try to secure an exception from general Government policy in favour of this small, efficient unit and those who work in it.

1.18 a.m.

Mr. John Moore: I, too, should like to express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) for allowing me to make a brief contribution because I have constituents who are actively involved in this establishment at Tolworth. I hope that the Minister will, if possible, read the excellent study which I shall give him, prepared by Stephen Tucker of Shirley Way, Croydon, who works in the establishment and who, to that extent, puts the questions better than I can.
All I can say is that this might be an opportunity for one of my more distinguished constituents, if not the most distinguished—the Minister—to illustrate flexibility in Government at this last moment to allow my constituents to benefit alongside those of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher.

1.19 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) and Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) for allowing me to join their ranks and to point out that I have constituents who will be affected by the move. Surely, the Government should not take any deliberate actions which will seriously disadvantage those specialist staff who are employed at Tolworth.
I should like to concentrate on one particular point. The specialist staff at Tolworth are classified as mobile, as I understand it, a classification within Civil Service terminology which was assumed on behalf of many of them after they had joined their present employment. If they decide not to go to


Glasgow they will have to leave the service without the benefit of redundancy payments and they will also have to seek other employment—a point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton—employment in which they will not be able to utilise their specialist skills.
This puts them in a particular, not to say a special, case, because it is not as though they can just go somewhere nearby and seek similar employment. They are in a special category because of the nature of the service they provide. It is largely a governmental type of service which is not done in the private sector and they will not be able to go round the corner, metaphorically speaking, and find another job. They will be devoid of the advantages of redundancy and will not be able to get advantages similar to those they have in their present jobs. That puts them in a seriously disadvantaged position.

1.21 a.m.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: I should also like to make a contribution and to congratulate the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) who has raised this subject.
The whole question of job dispersal within the Civil Service is of extreme significance in Scotland. I should like to discuss some of the aspects of that question, but first let me say to some hon. Members opposite that we are quite civilised in Scotland. There is a general feeling, particularly in the West, that many people in the service feel that jobs should not be dispersed to Scotland on the basis that they fear losing the weighting allowances which they receive south of the border, and because they fear that they will not be able to understand us.
I must declare a constituency interest because in Cumbernauld New Town in my constituency we have been pressing this question for a long time. This is one job dispersal which will be important for us in Cumbernauld. It would be a Government centre in Scotland and on that hinges a lot of future development for much of the West of Scotland.
The dispersal of this Directorate would be a psychological boost to the whole of the West of Scotland. It has been regarded as a deprived area with many

problems and the psychological boost of having this directorate there would be very meaningful to the area. We have suffered emigration. People have left because there have not been the job opportunities and there has been little incentive for them to stay. There is high unemployment in the area, higher than in other constituencies about which hon. Members have spoken, and ancillary to that is the question of job dispersal to Scotland.
We hope that the Government will not be put off a policy of job dispersal to Scotland because of unemployment elsewhere. We ask them to remember the particular problems of the West of Scotland and to realise the great psychological boost which this move would provide for us in the West of Scotland. Too few jobs in the Civil Service have come to us and this is an opportunity for the Government to show that they care about the high level of unemployment in the West of Scotland.

1.24 a.m.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Reg Prentice): This has been an interesting debate in which the arguments which the hon. Lady has just put and those of the first four sneakers illustrated the dilemma facing the Government in this decision.
I shall make one of those awful replies which say "On the one hand this and on the other that". It is the case for one-armed Ministers.
I saw the staff side of my Department, including representatives of the DOS, on 21st October. They made a very strong case to me. I said then that this matter would be further considered by my colleagues and myself. That consideration is continuing. It is not complete. I cannot, therefore, make a definitive reply to the House tonight.
I would agree with all those hon. Members who paid tribute to the work of DOS. It has made a unique contribution in the developing world in the last 30 years. It exists entirely in order to serve our technical co-operation programme with developing countries. It is financed entirely from the aid programme. In the last 30 years it has carried out the mapping of over 2 million square miles of territory in the developing world as well as undertaking a considerable training programme both in


Tolworth, where people have come from the developing world, and in the developing world, where staff from Tolworth have been seconded.
The case against moving DOS is in many respects a special one. Some of the arguments, with respect, made by the first four speakers were arguments which could be applied to many establishments which are due for dispersal—the argument about convenience of location, cost and so on. But here there are certain special considerations.
I should like to underline two in particular. One is that the type of work in which these men and women are engaged is so specialised that for those who feel that for family reasons they cannot or do not choose to make the move to Scotland, there would not be comparable work available in the London area.
Meanwhile, if a substantial number do not choose to go to Scotland—and the Staff Side estimates that perhaps half might decide not to go—those who do go to Scotland will be so engaged in the work of training new recruits that the production of the unit could well be seriously affected. That is an important argument and one that I have clearly to acknowledge.
Another special reason is that the future life of the DOS itself is limited. A review of its future was carried out recently. I am glad to say that as a result of that review the Government were able to decide that it had a clear future for many years to come, but the size of the operation will diminish. We are talking of about 320 jobs to be transferred from Tolworth to the West of Scotland in 1980 or thereabouts. But the establishment will probably be reduced to about 220 during the 1980's and the whole operation will probably be phased out by the end of the century.
Therefore, a serious disadvantage from the Scottish point of view is that people trained in this work would not necessarily have the career prospects that they might expect in some other work. These are arguments which support the case for keeping DOS at Tolworth.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) properly drew attention to the case for dispersal. Those of us who see the difficulty of making the

transfer have to face up to the fact that we are in the classic situation of being in favour of dispersal in general but against a particular example.
The easiest thing for a departmental Minister to say to his colleagues is that their people should be dispersed but his should not. That is the difficult aspect of the whole thing. It was in July 1974 that the Government announced their dispersal proposals, broadly following the lines of the Hardman Report, and accepting the need to transfer some 30,000 Civil Service jobs out of London over a 10-year period to go mainly to the assisted areas. Those 30,000 jobs comprise people working in many situations where there are special arguments against making the move.
As one hon. Member recognised, there are other parts of the Ministry affected besides DOS and considerable practical difficulties are involved in moving them. If this had been a longer debate and if it had taken place at a more civilised hour, many hon. Members from assisted areas would have set out the case which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire East outlined, perhaps at greater length, and would have made the case for saying not merely that more jobs are required for the assisted areas but that those areas should have a better share of jobs with a professional or technical content, white collar as well as blue collar jobs.
We have all said, have we not, from time to time, that the imbalance of job opportunities in the United Kingdom can be solved only by pretty drastic surgery within the Civil Service, the nationalised industries and the private sector so that fewer of these specialist jobs are available in London and more in other parts of the country? Therefore, if there is a reconsideration within Government—there is a reconsideration of this point but I can make no announcement tonight—it is against that background of the need for dispersal that any special case must be argued, and it is very difficult to argue such a special case. I repeat that the matter is being studied but that I cannot forecast the outcome.
It is reasonable to acknowledge, as I have acknowledged I think, that there are special reasons in the case of DOS which are peculiar to it. I certainly agree with those who say that we must be very


careful to see that this unique and valuable organisation is maintained and that nothing is done to destroy it. On the other hand, it is vital to recognise that the whole dispersal programme could be whittled down by a series of special cases and that we must balance one argument against another.

Mrs. Bain: Can the Minister give any indication when he might reach a decision about the dispersal programme? It has been drawn to my attention in the last week that the process of trawling in terms of job dispersal is not to operate in Glasgow until 1984, which suggests that the Ministry of Defence project will be held back. Therefore, we are increasingly interested in Departments such as the Minister's in terms of what they will mean to the West of Scotland.

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. I cannot give an indication of that. As the hon. Lady has reminded the House, there are proposals for dispersing a large part of the Ministry of Defence to the Glasgow area. That is a much bigger operation numerically than that which we are dis-

cussing tonight. Inevitably, when the Government consider any one unit, they have to do so against the background of the total programme. I do not want to go beyond that. I must not be even more indiscreet than I usually am. Therefore, I cannot answer the question.
Clearly, everyone is entitled to have more precise information as early as possible—certainly the staff of DOS and their families are entitled to a more definitive statement—but the Government's policy as of tonight is the dispersal policy announced in July 1974. There is no alteration of that policy which I am authorised to announce. I hope that I have indicated to those who have raised the question that I recognise the special problems, that I have been going into them carefully and that I have been impressed by the staff side argument. But I cannot go beyond that. I shall inform the House and the staff and everyone concerned when I can give more information.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Two o'clock.